U.S. Ranger Sales Surged in Q1 and Now Match Chevy Colorado’s Volume

[HenryMac]

First of all, you may want to have the safety discussion with Floyd. On cost, the Pinto at $700 will win every day, as long as it runs. Carbon footprint, the Prius would kill it.

The discussion is mileage, which by default brings in carbon footprint.

No way the Prius wins on Carbon footprint. You forgot to calculate, as do most folks, the carbon footprint of making the Prius and the environmental impact of building the battery pack and charging the battery pack...

The Prius Carbon Footprint Myth

 

[Floyd]

Yea right Floyd. $11 in unscheduled maintenance for the first 100k miles. About the only way this is believable is (a) you have a wider definition of unscheduled maintenance than everybody else,; (b) you had a donor car for parts; and/or (c) you were getting parts for free from somewhere.

Back in that era, the Supra actually had slightly better performance than the Pinto, but both were downright slow by todays standards. The Pinto did have its light weight going for it though. If you were trouncing Supra's my guess is you were not running the stock Pinto motor. It looks like your profile says you have a v8 in the Pinto. The Pinto with a 5.0 HO FI would certainly leave all but the 4th generation Supra Twin-Turbo in the dust. The other motor that would have been a lot of fun in the Pinto was the Mustang SVO turbo 4.

Before the V8 project , I ran an SVO turbo 2.3L in my 1980 Pinto.
It was amazing above 3000RPM on acceleration and the top end was incredible.
I would share some true stories with you, but you just wouldn't believe me anyway

Earlier I installed a turbo with other mods on an RX7 for a friend. It would literally redline in overdrive.
I built the "SVO Pinto" to beat it.

 

[harringtondav]

Our Dart Aero gets 40+ on long trips. 1.3L Fiat turbo, so there is also plenty of get up and go when needed.

 

[JimG_AZ]

The discussion is mileage, which by default brings in carbon footprint.

No way the Prius wins on Carbon footprint. You forgot to calculate, as do most folks, the carbon footprint of making the Prius and the environmental impact of building the battery pack and charging the battery pack...

The Prius Carbon Footprint Myth

Interesting. I have read about this before. I have read about the super-fund level site in Canada and who knows what is going on in China. My question to you is did you even bother to read the article that you posted? The first article is pretty old. There is not a date on it, but it looks like it was originally published in late 2010 to maybe early 2011. The second article is from 2016 and points out some interesting thoughts. First a Prius is expected to last about 100k miles? Just do a search on CraigsList to check the validity of that. But the best quote was this

So while the Prius may not be worse for the environment than a Hummer is, it certainly would be given a run for its money when put head-to-head with a used car with reasonable fuel economy.

Note the used car. So would a new car with reasonable fuel economy lose to the Prius?

Back to the original comparison of a modern day Prius vs a 1980 Pinto. No doubt that the emissions from producing a Prius is significantly higher than say a modern day Focus or Fusion. (1) I wonder how that compares to the emissions generated back in 1980 to produce the Pinto. I have no idea, but I would guess the plant was not as clean as today. (2) In this country, the majority of the population is in the cities. So, if we go by city miles, I think the Prius is rated at 54 mpg and what is the Pinto rated at in the city – maybe 21 to 23 mpg? That would give the Prius at least 2.3 times the mpg in the city. (3) The Pinto is late 1970’s-1980 technology for emissions. According to epa.gov a 2013 car is 99% cleaner than a 1970 car. Now to be fair, the 1970 car was running leaded gas, whereas Floyd’s 1980 Pinto would have been unleaded, so right there is probably a significant gain in cleaner emissions. Still, hard to believe that a 1980 4 cyl would be nearly as clean as a modern 4 cyl.

 

[JimG_AZ]

Before the V8 project , I ran an SVO turbo 2.3L in my 1980 Pinto.
It was amazing above 3000RPM on acceleration and the top end was incredible.
I would share some true stories with you, but you just wouldn't believe me anyway

Earlier I installed a turbo with other mods on an RX7 for a friend. It would literally redline in overdrive.
I built the "SVO Pinto" to beat it.

Just because I do not agree with you that a stock Pinto would blow away a stock Supra of that era does not mean that I would not believe you that a SVO turbo powered Pinto would be really fast. I’ll bet that car was insane.

When I got out of college in the late 80’s I wanted to buy an SVO Mustang. I couldn’t find one and I needed a car, so I purchased a 1988 Mustang LX 5.0 instead. I still have a soft spot in my heart for the Fox body Mustangs.

 

[HenryMac]

Interesting. I have read about this before. I have read about the super-fund level site in Canada and who knows what is going on in China. My question to you is did you even bother to read the article that you posted? The first article is pretty old. There is not a date on it, but it looks like it was originally published in late 2010 to maybe early 2011. The second article is from 2016 and points out some interesting thoughts. First a Prius is expected to last about 100k miles? Just do a search on CraigsList to check the validity of that. But the best quote was this



Note the used car. So would a new car with reasonable fuel economy lose to the Prius?

Back to the original comparison of a modern day Prius vs a 1980 Pinto. No doubt that the emissions from producing a Prius is significantly higher than say a modern day Focus or Fusion. (1) I wonder how that compares to the emissions generated back in 1980 to produce the Pinto. I have no idea, but I would guess the plant was not as clean as today. (2) In this country, the majority of the population is in the cities. So, if we go by city miles, I think the Prius is rated at 54 mpg and what is the Pinto rated at in the city – maybe 21 to 23 mpg? That would give the Prius at least 2.3 times the mpg in the city. (3) The Pinto is late 1970’s-1980 technology for emissions. According to epa.gov a 2013 car is 99% cleaner than a 1970 car. Now to be fair, the 1970 car was running leaded gas, whereas Floyd’s 1980 Pinto would have been unleaded, so right there is probably a significant gain in cleaner emissions. Still, hard to believe that a 1980 4 cyl would be nearly as clean as a modern 4 cyl.

You must be a youngster if you think a 2010 article is "out of date"?

If you have a perfectly good running Pinto and decide to replace it with a Prius to save the planet and help the environment... you are on a fools errand. Keep the Pinto, it's existing carbon footprint is smaller than what a new Prius would be.

Now if you want a "safer" car, or a newer car, or a hybrid car... 'cause that's just what you want, fine. But don't brag about saving the planet, you are not. Quite the contrary.

 

[HenryMac]

Now, go back and compare base models of each truck, or better yet what $26000 actually buys in each.
Toyota's most loyal customers are those who have never driven anything else, not the other way around.

Pretty clear cut who the winner is...

 

[John Lyman]

I understand paying over sticker for a collector car when they are only making X - but massed produce you are right - but then again Jeep people are a little crazy (said the former Jeep guy).

 

[JimG_AZ]

You must be a youngster if you think a 2010 article is "out of date"?

If you have a perfectly good running Pinto and decide to replace it with a Prius to save the planet and help the environment... you are on a fools errand. Keep the Pinto, it's existing carbon footprint is smaller than what a new Prius would be.

Now if you want a "safer" car, or a newer car, or a hybrid car... 'cause that's just what you want, fine. But don't brag about saving the planet, you are not. Quite the contrary.

Actually, I was alive for the whole run of the now legendary Pinto. When you work in the tech sector, 10 years is a long time. Don’t you think there may have been some improvements in hybrids over the past 10 years?

 

[HenryMac]

Actually, I was alive for the whole run of the now legendary Pinto. When you work in the tech sector, 10 years is a long time. Don’t you think there may have been some improvements in hybrids over the past 10 years?

No improvements yet that reduce their carbon footprints significantly. Battery packs are notoriously nasty components.

Sorry, those are the facts. It's an inconvenient truth that the green deal folks don't want to recognize.

 

[RANGER PRIDE]

when we talk about lithium from the source, this is a good read. not particularly exciting, but gives good insight on the whole process.

http://www.lithiummine.com/home

in my opinion, theres always a positive and a negative to any thing.
finding the balance is the hard part.
take the tailgate damper for instance. positives, and negatives.

 

[the1mrb]

No improvements yet that reduce their carbon footprints significantly. Battery packs are notoriously nasty components.

Sorry, those are the facts. It's an inconvenient truth that the green deal folks don't want to recognize.

when we talk about lithium from the source, this is a good read. not particularly exciting, but gives good insight on the whole process.

http://www.lithiummine.com/home

in my opinion, theres always a positive and a negative to any thing.
finding the balance is the hard part.
take the tailgate damper for instance. positives, and negatives.

I agree that batteries, and electronics in general, are not the most green, but does that mean we shouldn't try? I hear the argument all the time that solar and wind and nuclear and all the "green" power sources aren't as good as burning "good old" coal and fossil fuels, so we should just abandon them. But if we put a little time and effort and money into them, they'll one day be better. Just because a hybrid or an all electric vehicle still has a carbon footprint doesn't mean it isn't a step in the right direction. Burning coal and fossil fuels will never get cleaner, but at least hybrids and electric vehicles have potential to be cleaner. So why not try to be better instead of accepting the status quo as "good enough".

And for the record, I don't think electric vehicles should be the future. I still think hydrogen or another type of fuel is what really needs to happen.

 

[HenryMac]

I agree that batteries, and electronics in general, are not the most green, but does that mean we shouldn't try? I hear the argument all the time that solar and wind and nuclear and all the "green" power sources aren't as good as burning "good old" coal and fossil fuels, so we should just abandon them. But if we put a little time and effort and money into them, they'll one day be better. Just because a hybrid or an all electric vehicle still has a carbon footprint doesn't mean it isn't a step in the right direction. Burning coal and fossil fuels will never get cleaner, but at least hybrids and electric vehicles have potential to be cleaner. So why not try to be better instead of accepting the status quo as "good enough".

And for the record, I don't think electric vehicles should be the future. I still think hydrogen or another type of fuel is what really needs to happen.

Sure.. try new stuff. But be honest about the results, the cradle to grave results. From mining materials to making the vehicle to driving and maintaining the vehicle to disposing of the components after the vehicle is no longer viable.

And if there are subsidies (ugh) take those out of the equation too.

What isn't needed is some googly eyed nut job selling snake oil to the masses.

 

[RANGER PRIDE]

heres a thought to ponder thats way out in left field like religion, democrats winning the next election, and an actual ED drug that works and is cheap.

suppose we leave all that bad oil and gas in the ground to save the earth.....in theory its a great idea right???? earth saved and generations forever live happily on grass and oats

well, what happens when the tectonic plates continue to move around and a volcano pops up right in the middle of that oil or gas field???? hmmmmm?????

it will be fire and brimstone, burning up whats left of the earth in one big fuck you.

so I say we get ahead of the game, continue to burn what we can, while directing technologies to be as efficient and clean burning as possible.

 

[the1mrb]

Sure.. try new stuff. But be honest about the results, the cradle to grave results. From mining materials to making the vehicle to driving and maintaining the vehicle to disposing of the components after the vehicle is no longer viable.

And if there are subsidies (ugh) take those out of the equation too.

What isn't needed is some googly eyed nut job selling snake oil to the masses.

There are a lot of things that need to change, no doubt about that. Not just the energy method, but how we gather it, transport it, produce it, design it, recycle it. I didn't say it would be easy or quick. But again, the status quo won't be able to continue forever.