CarTalk.com Best of Deals Car Reviews Repair Shops Cars A-Z Radio Show

Which would you choose? Green car or Dream Car?

How about a green colored Lamborghini, does that count? :stuck_out_tongue:

Like a couple others have said, I’d own my dream car('67 GT500) over a Prius any day. Lord knows Obama will probably take England’s model and start charging us congestion charges based on the size of our vehicle’s engines.

Right! There is more to life than gas mileage! There’s also ski vacations, fishing, golf, motorcycle riding, sailboat racing, eating out, live music, etc., and a car that doesn’t burn through your money like a second wife lets you do more of that.

This is why my dream car would get really good gas mileage, would need no maintainance and would last forever.

My vote is for “Dream Car.” My motorcycles use less fuel than the greenest of cars, so my next car will be something I can use to tow my motorcycles to the shop and pull a small camper trailer. However, it will be a compromise between “Green” and “Dream;” probably an old police cruiser. As hard as I try, I just can’t see myself driving a truck on a routine basis.

My real dream car would be an Ariel Atom.

RR? Please! I prefer a turbo Bentley. I think the Brooklands Mulliner would be acceptable. 530 BHP. 774 lb-ft torque! That’ll tear up some pavement.

This a dream sequence; your dream sequence. You create the rules. You drive your Prius, and I’ll drive my Bentley Brooklands Mulliner.

Definitely Dream Car. Some green cars aren’t green in aspects such as batteries (mining metals and later disposal). And with dream cars, getting to the destination is half the fun (or more).

Ah yes, but the original premise was money is no object… :wink:

All right then, I’ll have a Formula One racer to wring out on my personal race track. Something to do on those IFR days when the P-51 Mustang is grounded. :wink:

Now you’re talking!

I don’t think any dream car I might choose would not be green. They are not mutually exclusive.

Some green cars aren’t green in aspects such as …

I don't understand the logic there?  It would seem that you are excluding cars because they are green, but not green enough so you reject it for a car that is less green????

Given the goal of “Green cars” is to help protect the environment (cleaner air to breath, cleaner water to drink, less drain on our natural resources, …), then I’ll go Green over Dream where they are mutually exclusive.

No brainer . . . a dream car. Rocketman

Bill Cosby is a very rich man. He was interviewed once and asked what he would like most. Since he owns a large number of things (cars, sailboat, etc) that require maintenance, he said: “Most of all I would like Maintenance”. What he meant was not ever having to worry about whether something will work or when it needed maintenance.

At our income levels that would mean trying to own cars that were foolproof and low maintenance and had a long life. In the 70s, a friend of mine got tired of repairs and bought a Checker Marathon, the non-taxi version of that workhorse. He drove it for many years, since taxis do 100,000+ miles per year and he only did 15,000, he had it for over 20 years.

He told me it was so reliable as to be almost boring. That was his dream car!

I see your point. To clarify, my dream cars aren’t based on a level of greenness, but on a level of enjoyment (not that these items are mutually exclusive). I guess I was thinking in my earlier post of a few people who stare down their noses at the rest of us and think we should be legislated into driving what they are driving (I saw some of them interviewed on TV). They feel all warm and fuzzy because they think their “green” car has little to no effect on the environment.

In reality, their green cars DO have an impact, but these Orwellian people on TV seemed oblivious to this. Mining metals for the batteries has an environmental impact and I imagine that later disposal of them will as well. And the “manmade global warming” theory has some serious scientific arguments against it (okay, I’m opening a can of worms).

I have driven Priuses and Camry Hybrids on a few occasions and, while they’re interesting, they’re not my dream cars. If someone else wants one, that’s their choice and I support their right to choose. I’m glad I also still have a right to choose.

If the right electric or some other powered car comes along in the future I will be open to looking into it, but nothing right now is interesting enough or fits my needs.

Mining metals for the batteries has an environmental impact and I imagine that later disposal of them will as well.

These batteries are almost never disposed of in their complete form. They are harvested for materials that can be recycled and the hazardous materials are separated and properly disposed of. This recycling diminishes the need for mining. You don’t throw your normal car batteries away with the weekly garbage pick-up, do you? I hope you recycle them. These Lithium Ion batteries are similarly recycled.

As to your global warming comment, I happily admit that back in the 1980s and 1990s, there was a lot of disagreement in the scientific community, but that has changed. There is now a consensus in the scientific community, with a few scientists who don’t agree with the consensus. I get the feeling you will never accept this consensus as compelling, so I won’t try to convince you. Instead, I will regard you the same way I regard people who refuse to accept Darwin’s theory of evolution.

The real problem is that, for many people, their stance on the “global warming” issue has become a belief (on both sides of the issue). Very few people are open minded enough to reconsider the validity of their beliefs. The other thing about beliefs is that they don’t require compelling evidence. When something is a theory, an opinion, or a supposition, it can evolve as people learn more about the issue. Beliefs are much more rigid.

No brainer. Dream car for sure. True car lovers will go for the dream car.

I agree with you that for many people the “global warming” issue has become a belief on both sides of the issue, and that many (on either side) aren’t willing to look into some facts themselves with an open mind.

There’s one (No. 61-7968) parked out front of the Virginia Aviation Museum down the road. Maybe I should go make an offer for it :slight_smile:

I’m sure it has alot of miles on it, and it’s been sitting out in the weather for years now, I’m sure they’d be willing to negotiate

You don’t throw your normal car batteries away with the weekly garbage pick-up, do you? I hope you recycle them.

No, what I (and most others) do is:

  • Turn in the dead battery at the auto pats store when I buy a new one
  • The auto parts store, woring on a thin margin, unloads them to the lowest bidder on the job
  • The “low bid” guy ships them to Port-au-Prince or Bangalore, where the lead’s smelted without pollution controls, by a worker, without respiratory equipment, who makes $15/day 'till he dies. What can’t be smelted is then dumped somewhere inconspicuous.

Maybe a little bit too pessimistic, but probably more realistic than “batteries are lawfully recycled by workers with full protection as per OSHA, without harmful emissions from smelting.” A similar thing has been happening with supposedly “recycled” electronics.