Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Funny Article About The Toyota Prius

Rate this topic


Inspector

Recommended Posts

Yes, BMW's, Mercede's, VW, etc. They are not over-engineered but engineered wrong. You ever try and install a CD player in a Beemer? It's not fun. Panels are screwed in from the back or glued on, or don't want to come apart without cracking. OTH, in my Explorer, one of the most intelligently engineered vehicles in existence, panels come apart with ease and in ways that don't make the vehicle seem "cheap". Everything is where it should be. Everything put into the vehicle serves a purpose and is easily accessible without sacrificing quality. A BMW is too well put together in the sense that if anything ever goes wrong, say a bad heater control or a bad window roll-up switch you are going to have a hell of a time fixing it. But that's just my two cents on the subject.

Actually, it really isn't over-engineering. It's simply a matter of different priorities. A friend owns a Russian made Ural motorcycle. The thing is so loosely built, it shakes like nobodys business and you can do literally anything to it. It's "poorly built" by anyones standards outside of the Eastern Block. The thing is, the bike is nearly indestructible and parts can be easily replaced, fixed, or swapped out with various pieces of farm equipment or stuff you have lying around. That is in start relief to my employees BMW. It is the most well machined piece of equipment I've ever ridden. Everything fits together like a glove. It's so well machined the bike almost never breaks. But when it does, he has hell to pay.

The same is true with the AK-47 and the M16. The AK can be made, fixed, etc in a machine shop in someone's house practically. It's not as well fitted or accurate as the 16 but it can stand up to mud and alot of crap. The M16 on the other hand relies of high tech machining to produce alot of parts. Downside is they are hard/expensive to produce, not as easily repaired given the number of parts, but are much more reliable if taken care of.

It's just a matter of view. Russian's build their stuff with alot of fault tolerance with the assumption you will break down or have to do a field expedient repair. Whereas Germans/Americans produce their equipment with ultimate efficiency in mind with the assumption that things will be well maintained with the goal of avoiding breakdowns. So the BMW is made with the idea that it's perfect the way it is and if you don't monkey with it, it will last. The Ford is made assuming that your going to be needing or will want to work on it. Each is well engineered for their purpose and goal. It is just a matter of identifying the design philosophy behind each item.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As true as that is, Scott, the Germans are known for their “over-engineering” tendencies. i.e. over-focus on some particular engineering goal while losing sight of the “big picture” of the intended purpose of the device. An oft-cited recent example is Mercedes’ COMAND (the labyrinthine control system they used for HVAC on some recent vehicles) and BMW’s I-DRIVE.

Also, what was the last German car with a decent power/weight ratio that cost less than $80,000? Sure, they make some real barnstormers, such as BMW’s “M,” Mercedes’ AMG models, Porche’s “S” models, and Audi’s “RS” line, but all of these are quite expensive.

I mean I would love to have almost any of those in my garage, but at those prices? Not too likely.

Compare to, say, a mustang, corvette, GTO, or camaro/firebird. Sure the American counterparts can’t handle quite as well, but they can match or beat in a straight line and each model costs roughly half as much as its counterpart. You could easily modify any of them with aftermarket parts to beat the German car and still have a wad of cash left over vs the German purchase price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the German auto-firms are spending all that cash keeping their factories looking great.

LOL, ah the Phaeton. The $100,000 answer to the question absolutely nobody was asking. :thumbsup:

They shot themselves in the foot but hard by making that one a Volkswagen and not an Audi. That hurt both brands rather badly and I hear their sales are in the tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As true as that is, Scott, the Germans are known for their “over-engineering” tendencies. i.e. over-focus on some particular engineering goal while losing sight of the “big picture” of the intended purpose of the device. An oft-cited recent example is Mercedes’ COMAND (the labyrinthine control system they used for HVAC on some recent vehicles) and BMW’s I-DRIVE.
Saab also introduced a "clutchless" manual that while elegant, it failed to work. In that case, I'd agree with the idea of bad design. But, if it works, then I disagree with a design being bad. If the lack of moving parts or complicated designs while retaining functionality equals good design, then Russian designs would be extremely well engineered. Mind you, Russian designs I'm familiar with (sks, ak, and Ural bikes) all work really well once they are set up, they are good for very different reasons. As I said before, Russians would say we desperately over engineer our designs. Sure, they are reliable but they are overpriced and complicated.

It think what we are arguing about is the number of parts to functionality scale. You have Russian engineering (which I'm not entirely defending because so much is total crap) on one end and German on the other. I think the argument is on what part of the scale does optimal efficiency fall.

Compare to, say, a mustang, corvette, GTO, or camaro/firebird. Sure the American counterparts can’t handle quite as well, but they can match or beat in a straight line and each model costs roughly half as much as its counterpart. You could easily modify any of them with aftermarket parts to beat the German car and still have a wad of cash left over vs the German purchase price.
Even amongst the examples you cite there is a significant difference. Traditionally, Mustangs have had amazing 1/4 mile times compared to the Chevy F bodies. However, put a simple turn or curve into the equation and the Mustang really looses. Even better, make them stop. Again, F Body wins.

Though there is a divergence in German designs. Compare the performance of a VW Corrado to that of a base model Prosche. It wasn't 1:1 but it was close enough to make people think. To bad it was butt ugly. Anyway, when you go to Europe, you see Mercedes sedans all over the place being used for things like cabs etc. Over there, they are realtively cheap. Minus issue like import duties etc, they are thought of like Chevy's and Lincon are here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It think what we are arguing about is the number of parts to functionality scale. You have Russian engineering (which I'm not entirely defending because so much is total crap) on one end and German on the other. I think the argument is on what part of the scale does optimal efficiency fall.

The part of the scale where my Ford Explorer falls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The part of the scale where my Ford Explorer falls.

Touche Eric. I personally am a bit left of the scale and would prefer to own another Harvester truck wich is as close as you can get to Russian practicality. But, I have a real love of my old Volvo with all it's over-engineered glory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Downside is they are hard/expensive to produce, not as easily repaired given the number of parts, but are much more reliable if taken care of.

This conversation begs the question what is more valuable----the m-16 or ak--the bmw or russian motorcycle--the bmw or the explorer?

All are valuable depending on your purpose, but the more valuable productions are clear. So I agree with scott that "It's simply a matter of different priorities."

Although this topic is intuitive, You can't compare the usefulness of a bmw with an explorer without first knowing its users purpose. A bmw handles better and is faster. An explorer may not handle better for that reason; it is not as much as one piece as the bmw therefore easier to take apart and fix. Apples and oranges. Maybe you could compare a bmw 3 series with a mazda rx-7 (a ford owned production)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the type of engineering used is valuable contextually based on the intended application of the vehicle, in the sense of the tolerances and panels in your BMW vs Russian motorcycle.

But the vice of “over-engineering” that I was attempting to articulate refers to overcomplexity that directly interferes with the intended function of the object. Early versions of COMAND required that the user go through several layers of nested menus to do something as simple as adjust the air conditioner or change the radio system. Obviously, when one is in the middle of trying to drive this is less than optimal! A simple dial or button would be infinitely preferable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have Russian engineering (which I'm not entirely defending because so much is total crap) on one end and German on the other.

I'd say that debate was settled pretty decisively in WWII! ;)

In Budapest, all the subway trains are still the Russian-made ones from the '70s. They make a noise so loud you can't hear your own voice; they probably use a lot of electricity; their shape is perfectly uninfluenced by aerodynamics or aesthetics; but they work, and would probably continue to work for decades or even centuries more.

Russian engineering is not based on the requirements of man's life qua man, but it does have integrity--an integrity centered around the word "massive." The one beautiful thing about the Soviet Union--beautiful to watch from a distance--was that they took materialism and brought it to its logical conclusion.

The key thing about German engineering, on the other hand, is its lack of integrity. It is defined by a perpetual conflict between the requirements of man's life--and the "duty" to deny them. If you are an automotive engineer in Germany, each of your working days will find you caught in a vise whose one side pushes you towards greater profits for your company through faster, more comfortable, and more beautiful cars, while the other side demands that you be "sparsam" (frugal), "umweltbewusst" (conscious of the enviroment), and generally devoid of all forms of selfishness. The occasional victories of the first of these forces give us the great features of some of the BMWs, Audis, and the like--but the second influence keeps the designers from going all the way with their good ideas and makes them substitute mediocre features or unnecessary complications for them. "Over-engineering," I believe, is a symptom of this broader problem.

And then there is the Trabant, the East German nightmare-mobile that combines the Communists' materialism with the Germans' dutiful skimping--a car whose body is made out of cheap plastic and cardboard (sic!) and whose two-stroke engine is known not only for its extreme pollution but also for its tendency to blow up and make the whole car burst into flames while waiting at red lights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traditionally, Mustangs have had amazing 1/4 mile times compared to the Chevy F bodies.

Uh-oh. Don’t go there man! ;) Suffice to say, quarter mile dominance has gone back and forth over the years.

Anyway, when you go to Europe, you see Mercedes sedans all over the place being used for things like cabs etc. Over there, they are realtively cheap. Minus issue like import duties etc, they are thought of like Chevy's and Lincon are here.

Good point, although I would wonder how much of that is due to the fact that cars (along with many other consumer goods) are simply more expensive in their more-socialized-version-of-the-mixed-economy. So that’s yet another monkey wrench in trying to compare apples to apples.

Nevertheless, where’s their corvette? Where’s their Mustang? Where’s their “costs less than $30,000 and will do a 13 second quarter-mile” car? There isn’t any. There are cultural values here in America which make such things possible.

But all of this is speaking of wide automotive trends and I’m really hesitant to make any but the broadest statements about those. The simple fact is that car buying is an extremely personal choice so each buyer has potentially wildly divergent goals. And the other simple fact is that 99% of the cars on the road are mediocre at best, regardless of their country of origin.

The reason I started this thread was because one particular car – the Prius – fails grossly at its intended mission of being an economy car. It’s really nothing more than an Environmentalist boondoggle and the only “reason” to buy one is if one subscribes to that anti-man ideology.

My goal in posting this thread was to remove the aura of false hype around this travesty of a vehicle. There needs to be less of these, to borrow a phrase, “flatulence-powered balsa-wood clown cars.” This stupid failure of a vehicle doesn’t even fulfill the irrational purpose it was designed, subsidized and falsely advertised to do. I hate to see rational, non-environmentalist-moonbat individuals thinking falsely (due to media hype) that they might save money by purchasing this rotten piece of junk, and as a result wasting their hard-earned cash. And finally, I want to cut into their government-subsidized sales so that my pocket is less picked for the sake of a “green” agenda.

This is not a criticism of a nationality of cars, or even of Toyota cars in general.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the vice of “over-engineering” that I was attempting to articulate refers to overcomplexity that directly interferes with the intended function of the object. Early versions of COMAND required that the user go through several layers of nested menus to do something as simple as adjust the air conditioner or change the radio system. Obviously, when one is in the middle of trying to drive this is less than optimal! A simple dial or button would be infinitely preferable.

I think that's more a problem of bad interface design like running straight up linux vs ubuntu like I do. But, then, interface is the meat and potatos if not most critical portion of design as it is the part of design that connects humans with technology. But I do agree that sometimes things are way overly complex. It's the Rube Goldberg approach that kills lots of things. Changing the spark plugs on an SHO Taurus or the design of the Caddy HT4100 are good examples.

I used to be a mechanic. I focused on British and Japanese cars, especially tuning SU and multi-carb setups. I hated working on injection systems because they were much more complex to fix than carbs, but they do have distinct advantages. The complexity of injection systems (invariably German) were a pain to work on but once you got them dialed in, they were more reliable and needed less tuning than carbs. Still, my forte was carbs becuase I "got" the interface. When I worked on American cars, I would rather tune Edelbrock carbs than Holley's becuase though more complex, once you got it tuned it was as good if not better (IMO) than a Holley. I even shoehorned a 501 from a Caddy into my 72 Monte Carlo and still got decent gas mileage considering I had more torque and equal hp to a hemi. That tended to end most 1/4 mile arguments though hell on the tire budget. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, you're not kidding. I used to own one of those. ;) (it was fun to drive, though.)

They were amazing cars, very impressive. Though short of Volvo's idea of having NO HOOD WHATSOEVER that could be opened, it is the least user friendly car. Lessee, step 1, remove intake manifold, step 2, loosen transaxle mounts, step 3, still have trouble getting at the plugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

step 2, loosen transaxle mounts,

You really had to do this? Wow, bet that sucked.

I can imagine how this was-- "Hmm, what's she in for, a tune-up? Let's just pull the engine to make it an easier job." ;)

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really had to do this? Wow, bet that sucked.

I can imagine how this was-- "Hmm, what's she in for, a tune-up? Let's just pull the engine to make it an easier job." :D

The V8 Chevy Monza you had to either pull the engine or drill holes clean through the federwells to change

those plugs. The Vega wasn't any better. And it had that wretched aluminum block. There were a tiny handful of VTEC Fiero's that were a flipping nightmare.

There are alot of cars now being made who have sealed engines and transmissions. You are not expected to change the oil/radiator fluid/ tranny fluid, etc for the life of the car. Or at least the 1st 100,000+ miles. Heck, with Volvo's new design it doesn't even have a hood. There is a tiny trap door to pour wiper fluid but that's it. They don't want you monkeying with anything.

That is indeed the future. The future doesn't have a hood release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I had to register for this forum just to comment on this. I know it's just a joke but some people still seem to be taking it seriously. The reasoning in this letter is deeply flawed. I also highly doubt this was printed in the Wall Street Journal.

"We recognize that our customers have an "emotional" relationship with their vehicles. This transcends even the regrettable truth that driving a fuel-efficient car does not yield any substantial benefits for society if it doesn't save the owner money."

Who defines if it benefits society? They do emit less environmental contaminants including carbon dioxide which Consumer Reports says “is linked to global warming.” Most scientists also agree that reducing these emissions will have a positive impact on our planet (I think our society is part of that?).

"..a survey by Consumer Reports found that our vehicles achieve considerably less mileage (some 26 percent less) than the sticker rating implies. "

I'll just hope that the author "forgot" to report that ALL manufacturers do this with ALL cars. Some gasoline cars get up to 50% less mpg than the sticker says. The author also forgot to mention that CR reported that most of the reason the stated mpg figures are incorrect is because the companies claim people drive more highway and less city miles than they do in reality. City driving just happens to be where you see the most benefits from a hybrid vehicle.

"Toyota applauds your willingness to spend $9,500 over the price of any comparable vehicle for the privilege of saving, at current gasoline prices, approximately $580 a year."

Verify this. $21, 725 is the msrp. The KBB value for a '01 Prius in good condition is around $14,500. Which comparable car costs $12,225, or $5,000 for a '01? Also the savings on gas would depend on how you drive the car (city/highway) and the mpg of the comparable car (which varies widely). Consumer Reports, which the author quotes, compared the new Civic Hybrid to many other cars including diesels in the Feb '06 issue. If the hybrid wasn't a good value (being $9,500 more than a comparable car I think would qualify), it wouldn't have recommended it as a CR Best Buy.

"Contrary to any loose statements made by our marketing partners in the environmental community and media, petroleum not consumed by Prius owners is not "saved." It does not remain in the ground. It is consumed by someone else. Greenhouse pollutants are released. Also, please note that the warranty and owner's manual say nothing about reducing America's dependence on foreign oil. This is not an oversight. The Prius is an "oil-dependent" vehicle. It runs on gasoline, supplied by the same world market that fuels other vehicles."

None of this paragraph is true. That it uses less gas and emits less environmental contaminants is the important part. According to the author less demand does not create less supply contrary to every economist’s thinking. That seems odd. And yes it does lessen our dependence on foreign oil. I uses less of it...

"Hybrid technology is not "green" technology."

Explain please.

"Our lawyers advise us this may affect your car's resale value."

Yes it may cause it to be one of the highest resale values in the auto industry. http://www.autoblog.com/2005/12/05/top-six-for-resale-value/

Used Prius's sometimes actually sell for MORE than they were purchased for. Their value, unlike any other car actually RISES. Taken from http://www.hybridcars.com/resale-values-payback-periods.html :

“The May 23 issue of Automotive News carried a story entitled "Used Prius Costs Same As New One." Using data from Toyota’s reports on certified-used Priuses, we learn the following:

The base price of the 2005 Prius is $21,440, including shipping.

Kelly Blue Book data shows that a used 2004 Prius typically sells, at wholesale, at or above the original base sticker price of $21,510.

Dealers add $1,000 to $3,000 to the price of used Priuses at retail. (Sell a Prius for yourself, and you can get as much as $25,000.)

Used Priuses usually stay on a used car lot for just a day or two.

Toyota expects U.S. sales of certified-used Priuses to nearly double this year, compared with 2004.

Most people say, "You lose a couple thousand dollars as you soon as you drive off the lot." Hybrids may be an exception to this rule.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another quote from Consumer Reports:

"The one car that people most love to love is once again the Toyota Prius, according to our latest survey of Consumer Reports subscribers."

It's worse than that, Jim. </McCoy>

That's assuming of course that you don't have to pay > $3000 to replace the batteries by then, which won't be covered by the warranty. And you almost certainly will. :D

Interesting, Consumer Reports says "most hybrids have an eight-year battery warranty. Ultimate battery life remains unknown." "...individual battery cells can be repaired." They don't have to be replaced.

I love my Explorer with the V8 that get's 11.6 mpg with the way that I drive. :)

I understand liking your car but you'd be paying less at the pump, improving our quality of life, and reducing the amount of oil we buy from the Mid East if you had a car with better gas mieage or improved emissions. If your Explorer is a '98 4WD Auto with 70,000 miles it releases 80,565 lbs of CO2 per year. By contrast, a '05 Prius releases just 4,226 lbs. And an '05 Civic releases 6,710.

http://www.terrapass.com/index.html

The so-called environmental benefits of such a car are sheer bunk, however.

:o:D:P:P:):lol:

But the facts about the flaws of the Prius are true.

Can you guys please explain what you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand liking your car but you'd be paying less at the pump, improving our quality of life, and reducing the amount of oil we buy from the Mid East if you had a car with better gas mieage or improved emissions.

Re: "Paying less at the pump": As long as one is comparing the Prius to a similar vehicle, and as one of the factors in the cost equation, this component of saving is something to consider.

Re: "improving our quality of life": Anyone can make any claim that something I do will improve their quality of life. One cannot give weight to other people's irrationality.

Re: "reducing the amount of oil we buy from the Mid East": I'd love to send less cash to the middle-east, so that I can spend it all on Chinese goods. But, rubbing the environmentalists the wrong way is worth something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, Consumer Reports says "most hybrids have an eight-year battery warranty. Ultimate battery life remains unknown." "...individual battery cells can be repaired." They don't have to be replaced.

The cost of the additional purchase price is still not made up for in eight years. What about after 10+ years? This is still an unknown, but it’s a gamble that buyers should be aware that they’re taking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reasoning in this letter is deeply flawed. I also highly doubt this was printed in the Wall Street Journal.

The reasoning of the letter is sound. It was in fact in the Wall Street Journal. Do a google search.

The reasoning which is deeply flawed it that of the Prius buyer.

Who defines if it benefits society? They do emit less environmental contaminants including carbon dioxide which Consumer Reports says “is linked to global warming.”
Man-made “Global Warming” is a fabrication of the Environmentalist religion. It has no basis in fact.

Most scientists also agree that reducing these emissions will have a positive impact on our planet (I think our society is part of that?).

That is a lie propagated by the Environmentalist movement. The majority of scientists do not in fact agree that global warming is caused by man’s activity.

"..a survey by Consumer Reports found that our vehicles achieve considerably less mileage (some 26 percent less) than the sticker rating implies. "

I'll just hope that the author "forgot" to report that ALL manufacturers do this with ALL cars.

That is true, but what you’re “forgetting” is that the projected vs actual disparity is much larger for hybrid vehicles than for conventional vehicles. So the point of the article remains valid.

"Toyota applauds your willingness to spend $9,500 over the price of any comparable vehicle for the privilege of saving, at current gasoline prices, approximately $580 a year."

Verify this. $21, 725 is the msrp.
The MSRP of the corolla, a comparable non-hybrid is $14,005. That’s a difference of $7720.

A Kia Rio is $10,570, for a difference of $11,155.

The KBB value for a '01 Prius in good condition is around $14,500.

An ’01 Kia Rio blue books for about $5500. (The ’01 Corolla for about $8450)

’01 Priuses also do not have the extended warranty on batteries (unless Toyota decided to make that extend to older vehicles). And the powertrain warranty only has 3 years left.

I’ll also note you can get a new Corolla for the price of that six-year-old Prius.

If the hybrid wasn't a good value (being $9,500 more than a comparable car I think would qualify), it wouldn't have recommended it as a CR Best Buy.
You may as well say that if Communism killed people, it wouldn’t have been endorsed by International ANSWER (A Stalinist group). Consumer Reports is well known for not being an objective source.

"Our lawyers advise us this may affect your car's resale value."

Yes it may cause it to be one of the highest resale values in the auto industry.

Current resale values are based on ignorance. If these facts became widely known, it would indeed have an influence on resale values.

“The May 23 issue of Automotive News carried a story entitled "Used Prius Costs Same As New One."
How do you reconcile this with your claim that you can get an ’01 Prius for the Blue Book value?

Using data from Toyota’s reports on certified-used Priuses, we learn the following:

The base price of the 2005 Prius is $21,440, including shipping.

Kelly Blue Book data shows that a used 2004 Prius typically sells, at wholesale, at or above the original base sticker price of $21,510.

Dealers add $1,000 to $3,000 to the price of used Priuses at retail.

They also add the same to the NEW prices. You’ll never get an ’05 Prius for $21,440. You’re going to easily be paying $10,000 more than for a Corolla.

For a real indicator, try Edmunds.com’s True Cost to Own. The ’05 Prius is about $9500 more than the ’05 Corolla.

In the real world, the Prius will attain about 10MPG better in the city and no better on the highway than the Corolla, not 28 better city and 10 better highway, as the EPA claims. (That’s one reason why the EPA is scrambling to change their tests.)

That’s better, but it isn’t $7700-$11,000 better.

Anyone who buys the Prius to save money is getting a raw deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with adding any amount of "greenhouse gasses" to the environment. That it has any effect whatsoever on the worlds climate is complete nonsense. But, if it really could somehow cause "global warming" why do people consider that a bad thing? I would love it if the climate in Michigan became like the climate in Florida. But that's just wishful thinking because the whole concept of global warming is a big hoax created on the premise that man is unnatural and every owl, snail, or sea urchin has more right to the Earth than human's do. It's nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...