oldopelguy...the reason nobody's done what you're suggesting is because it would be a really poor performer or really expensive. If you make it cheap, it'll perform poorly because it won't have adequate gearing, added weight, low power, and added weight. You guys keep talking about putting things under the bed, under the truck, etc. Take a look under a new truck these days, I don't think there's as much room as you're imagining there is. There are already electric motor/alternator hybrids out there, but they help the crankshaft instead of the driveshaft, GM's BAS system. It's a quick and dirty solution, so it's not a huge jump in efficiency, but it's super flexible and for that I love it. I really wish GM integrated it with more vehicles in the short term, but they're so focused on their long term stuff (the Volt, etc.) that it has been low priority. I can't blame them for that, they need to focus on the long-term plan right now.
bastomatic...the Baja was a compromise from the get go. Doesn't have a big enough bed to support the 4 doors, and it doesn't have any hauling capacity because it uses existing Subie parts and only has a tiny bed so why would it need capacity? The Baja was obviously not intended for utility purposes, it was a styling gimmick. If they made a 2 door (aka Brat) I'd have bought one. Really, I would have. Not like people who say they want X but have never bought a new car and probably never will, or people who say company Y should make Z because they want to buy one used a decade later. I really would have bought one.
SVreX, I hadn't seen that article. I'll have to check it out, as I'm a big supporter of long term utilization of EVs to supplement the grid, but obviously with claims like that about short term implementation, I'll believe it when I see it. Oh, and in terms of a REAL hybrid...I don't think you should be slamming GM's effort with their hybrid half ton. That truck was released years ago. Sure, it might have been clunky, but it was nearly FIVE years ago that it came out and it's still your best choice if you want a hybrid pickup that has integrated 120v power output, utility, towing capacity etc. You can use it just like any big truck, to pull your jobsite trailer, power your equipment instead of using a generator, and still return pretty good fuel economy. Porky? Perhaps if you compare it to a small truck that doesn't exist anymore, but it's not any more porky than other new trucks with the same towing capacity. Overpriced? Well duh...it's the first of it's kind, targeting a small group of people with the latest in automotive technology, of course it costs more than the non-hybrid equivalent. Even then, they were only $25k-$30k depending on options. That's 5 grand more than a Prius, not bad all things considered IMO. Furthermore, the experience garnered with their first hybrid has helped make the new two-mode leaps and bounds better. Keep in mind that Toyota didn't exactly hit a home run with the first gen Prius, you can't knock GM for not having a home run with the first US market hybrid pickup either.
Josh wrote:
I'm confused by the people who complain that the 5 is ugly - it sort of is what it is. That's what a 6 passenger small van with decent aero is going to end up looking like. It's like complaining that a refrigerator looks too boxy, or a knife looks too pointy. Of course, you could add 1000 pounds, 6" of ground clearance, butch up the styling, add absolutely ZERO utility, call it an SUV, and raise the price by 10 grand, and then maybe people would buy it.
It is what it is, which is UGLY. Those taillights have nothing to do with the body shape, utility, etc. They are just plain ugly, poorly executed, nasty looking junk that don't match the styling of the vehicle at all. That track built into the side of the car for the door to slide has nothing to do with aerodynamics, etc. Minivans have been hiding the door slider for a long while now, Mazda just didn't get the memo, it's ugly. The multiple small windows inserted into the doors (between the a-pillar and mirror and forward of the c-pillar) look ridiculous, serves no gain (except allowing you to roll the windows up and down further because they didn't account for that in their packaging). The back window (between c and d pillar) is painted to look like a porthole window while all of the other windows are squared off...what gives? I don't care for the front end styling, but that's pretty subjective and it's not nearly as horrible as the taillights so I'll leave that be.
It's quite clear that the Mazda group didn't spend much on styling, instead focusing on the chassis otherwise. That's fine and dandy for people who don't care if their car is ugly, but to deny its being ugly is silly. There are other minivans that aren't ugly, this one is ugly. While most minivans go for non-descript, they at least avoid ugly. Maybe you really like the cupholders or the color of the seats, whatever floats your boat, but the outside is ugly. The Aztek is ugly, sure it's a great utility vehicle but even their fans will admit they're styled poorly (especially the first model)...I would hope Mazda 5 owners would concede the same.
Bryce
