Slashdot Mirror

The EPA disagrees with your logic.

No. The numbers you just quoted fully suggest the EPA agrees.

Those mileage figures are approximately the same for city and highway driving- whereas for any other vehicle, city is much much worse (typically 20%).

Therefore, they agree that hybrid engines primarily help in city driving.

The Honda Civic Hybrid is an example of a hybrid is set up with the following:

• A smaller than normally practical internal combustion engine
• A continuously variable transmission to drive the wheels forward
• Improved aerodynamics
• An Aluminum chasis
• Electric motors on each of the wheels to generate power while braking and to assist the IC drivetrain

Energy is lost in the conversion from gas to electricity, it's also lost in the storage in the batteries and the usage from the batteries to the wheels. You konw and I know that while normally this would all be lost in the braking, now it is stored and used to assist with acceleration.

The odd part is that while driving where you aren't using the brakes a lot, the transmission, weight improvements and aerodynamics will be the only improvements in your efficiency. The electrical assist means that your engine can be improbably weak, but I don't know if that necessarily translates to a more efficient engine.

Here's something which nicely describes why I'm skeptical about the true performance of hybrids:

1992 Civic line:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1992_Honda_ Civic.shtml

2004 Civic line (including hybrids)
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2004_Honda_ Civic.shtml

I'm not sure why, but it looks like my 1992 1.5L Civic Hatchback is(was) more fuel efficient (city and highway) than the modern 2004 Civic Hybrid. I don't think U.S. government numbers are right, but they're close enough to try to make some kind of a point :-)

As an aside, I was looking into the hybrid transmissions and from what I could tell... I was wrong, the Honda Insight was manual-only, but the newer hybrids sometimes sell with the choice of an automatic or continuously variable transmission... oddly, the fancy transmission hurts highway fuel efficiency, but it helps in the city.

Note that comparing an aluminum hybrid to a galvanized steel compact, e.g. the Insight to a "regular" car, would not be an apples-to-apples comparison since if you were to remove all the weight from the electrical system (adding hydraulic brakes) and increase the engine size to match the lost horsepower, the new gas car would be more efficient than other gas cars on the road today, and might even be better on the highway than the hybrid. (Although it really should fail to beat the hybrid in the city)

A 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid to a 2004 Honda Civic would be a more reasonable comparison than my 1992 to a 2004... the 2004's have bigger engines and are less fuel efficient. I'd also expect the 2004 hybrid to have more horsepower than my 1992 car... so I'll admit, it's not a fair comparison...

But there may be less expensive, more fuel efficient non-hybrid vehicles on the market.

(In reality, I get about 37MPG on the highway, ~30 in the city... the car _is_ 13 years old)

The Honda Civic Hybrid is an example of a hybrid is set up with the following:

• A smaller than normally practical internal combustion engine
• A continuously variable transmission to drive the wheels forward
• Improved aerodynamics
• An Aluminum chasis
• Electric motors on each of the wheels to generate power while braking and to assist the IC drivetrain

Energy is lost in the conversion from gas to electricity, it's also lost in the storage in the batteries and the usage from the batteries to the wheels. You konw and I know that while normally this would all be lost in the braking, now it is stored and used to assist with acceleration.

The odd part is that while driving where you aren't using the brakes a lot, the transmission, weight improvements and aerodynamics will be the only improvements in your efficiency. The electrical assist means that your engine can be improbably weak, but I don't know if that necessarily translates to a more efficient engine.

Here's something which nicely describes why I'm skeptical about the true performance of hybrids:

1992 Civic line:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1992_Honda_ Civic.shtml

2004 Civic line (including hybrids)
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2004_Honda_ Civic.shtml

I'm not sure why, but it looks like my 1992 1.5L Civic Hatchback is(was) more fuel efficient (city and highway) than the modern 2004 Civic Hybrid. I don't think U.S. government numbers are right, but they're close enough to try to make some kind of a point :-)

As an aside, I was looking into the hybrid transmissions and from what I could tell... I was wrong, the Honda Insight was manual-only, but the newer hybrids sometimes sell with the choice of an automatic or continuously variable transmission... oddly, the fancy transmission hurts highway fuel efficiency, but it helps in the city.

Note that comparing an aluminum hybrid to a galvanized steel compact, e.g. the Insight to a "regular" car, would not be an apples-to-apples comparison since if you were to remove all the weight from the electrical system (adding hydraulic brakes) and increase the engine size to match the lost horsepower, the new gas car would be more efficient than other gas cars on the road today, and might even be better on the highway than the hybrid. (Although it really should fail to beat the hybrid in the city)

A 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid to a 2004 Honda Civic would be a more reasonable comparison than my 1992 to a 2004... the 2004's have bigger engines and are less fuel efficient. I'd also expect the 2004 hybrid to have more horsepower than my 1992 car... so I'll admit, it's not a fair comparison...

But there may be less expensive, more fuel efficient non-hybrid vehicles on the market.

(In reality, I get about 37MPG on the highway, ~30 in the city... the car _is_ 13 years old)

but when I run my Suburban on E85, I get over a hundred miles per gallon of gasoline.

Care to back this up?

In reality, you are off by an order of magnitute. Accoridng to a government source, you actually get 10 MPG in the city, and 14 MPG on the highway. The gas mileage on that vehicle with E85 is actually worse than gasoline.

The only advantage of that alternative fuel in that vehicle is it reduces the polution index. You burn more fuel but you put out less pollution.

Perhaps you are really just someone who desperately wants to justify a vastly oversized vehicle that they likely do not need. What is it with Americans and our intense desire to take up more space and resources than anyone else?

For the record, I drive a 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid. Its battery package is safely enclosed in a Kelvar shell that prevents leakage in the event of an accident. If the car is mangled enough that the back-half of the vehicle is ripped apart length-wise, there is no need to rescue me because the car would have to be beyond recognition. The electrical system also has plenty of failsafes to prevent dangerous shocks. Overall and on average, my vehicle is no more a liability to others in an accident than any other car.

And no matter what you say, SUVs remain a tremendous threat to those with smaller vehicles on the road. No amount of nonsense, canned responses, or irrational whims will change the laws of physics.

Diesel fuel can actually give you a higher fuel eficiency than POUG (plain old unleaded gasoline).

According to this article, the volkswagon 4-door Jetta with a volkswagon turbo diesel engine gets ~50 mpg.

This site discusses what makes a good diesel vehicle a good diesel vehicle - and when a POUG engine is better. With the correct differential, todays diesel engine will have a 10%-30% higher fuel efficiency. Of course, modern diesel engines have a higher intial cost, but the A4000 is already $400,000, so I don't think an extra $5K-$10K for an efficient diesel engine is an issue.

Octane rating doesn't affect fuel economy, unless the fuel has a drastically lower octane rating than what the vehicle requires.

A 4.2L Range Rover V8 produces 200HP at 4850rpm and achieves 12/16 mpg.
A 5.7L Chevrolet V8 produces between 285-345HP, depending on the vehicle (Camaro vs. Corvette) and achieves 22/28 mpg. Both figures are rated at the wheels, not crankshaft.

I mentioned the Range Rover because it's listed as the worst gas guzzler. It's worse than even the largest of U.S. SUV's.

In the 1960's, automakers measured HP at the flywheel, with a balanced and blueprinted engine and no accessories or exhaust restrictions. After 70's gas crunch and 80's insurance crunch, they began rating output at the rear wheels of a showroom stock vehicle instead.

Thus, a 1972 Pontiac Trans Am 455HO is rated over 400HP (crankshaft). A 1989 Pontiac Trans Am 3.8L Turbo V6, rated at 250HP (rear wheels) will beat it in a drag race.

Why does the EPA rate a supposedly fuel efficient, environmentally friendly 2003 diesel Volkswagen Golf as Tier 1 as and give it a 1 out 10 for an air pollution score?
Check it out yourself: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
NOx is the problem: http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/faq.htm#diesel

There is a useful site at:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

They have a database of vehicles, their fuel economy, and what emissions the vehicle produces.

Have had it for a year, and learned a lot about them.

There are three hybrids being sold right now:

- Honda Civic Hybrid
- Honda Insight
- (2003) Toyota Prius

The Hondas use a gas engine as their primary engine with an electric engine (which doubles as a generator during braking) as a secondary source of acceleration. Think of this arrangement as a gas engine with a massive-battery-powered electric supercharger. If the electric engine fails, the gas engine will still get you there -- it just accelerates slower.

The Prius is the other way around -- its primary engine is electric, and a secondary gas engine gives it the acceleration. In the Prius, it is possible to drive (with very little gas pedal pressure) on electric alone -- something the Prius owners call "Zen driving." If the gas engine fails, you can still drive on the electric.

Reliability:
I know people who own both a Honda Civic Hybrid (HCH) and a 2003 Prius. I personally own the HCH. I would have no hesitation in buying one again. I average 54 MPG in the summer, and 45 MPG in the winter. Range is ~600 miles per tank; I drive 50 miles a day, and fill up twice a month. I have heard that it is possible to get ~700 miles/tank in a Prius, but have never got a first hand report of that.

The Honda had one early bug with deep, cold weather -- very occasionally, the electric system would shut down and not restart until the car was shut down and restarted. A flash of the computer firmware fixed it. Many people reported this problem. It also had an issue with a squeak in a support pillar, fixed by shimming with a business card. Maintenance visits are scheduled for every 10000 miles. Gas mileage is better on the highway (51 mpg) than the city (49 mpg).

The 2003 Prius has had more problems. Issues were with "highway wandering" -- it feels like the car wants to migrate around the road -- and shaking of the steering wheel at low speeds. Cause: the entire power steering rack needed to be replaced. There's also the gas engine failure called the "Big Hand" that's fixed with a similar car reboot, but it's caused by the Accelerator Pedal Assembly needing to be replaced. Many people report that they've had both of these problems. Maintenance is more frequent at 7,500 miles. Gas mileage is better in the city (51 mpg) than the highway (49 mpg).

I don't know anyone who drives a Honda Insight. Supposedly they still make ~1500 of them a year, but rumor has it that Honda is going to be dropping them.

Near-term and Farther-out Models:
The Prius has been out longer than the HCH, and is getting a technological refresh in 2004. The 2003 Prius and the HCH are both 4-seater compacts, but the 2004 Prius will be a mid-size, with better mileage (59 city, 51 highway) and better acceleration (0-60 in 10 instead of 12). There is currently a waiting list for them.

Cars/Trucks/SUVs due to be released as hybrids in 2004:

Honda Accord,
Honda CR-V,
Ford Escape

2004 or 2005:
Chevy Silverado
Saturn Vue
GMC Suburban

Here's an in-depth look at Hybrid technology from the Union of Concerned Scientists (Google HTML translation here).

Here's the best description of what it's like to drive one.

There is a federal tax deduction of $2000 for buying a new hybrid. Several states also offer their own tax deductions or credits -- check here to look them up. Some states (but not all) also let you drive them in their high occupancy lanes, even though you may only have one driver in it.

Oh, by the way -- I know that the 2003 Honda Civic Hybrids are

The US Department of Energy's comparison of different cars.

A Mini Cooper gets 28/37 MPG, as noted here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/19303.shtm l. Why not get a fun car to drive that's also fuel efficient?

.bob

They get better mileage in town than on the freeway, because of regenerative braking.

Actually, regenerative breaking reduces the penality for stop-and-go in the city, but breaking still reduces the net fuel economy of the vehicle. The reason why they tend to do better in the city is because at freeway speeds most of hybrids out there are going to use the gas motor far more than at slower speeds, where the electric motor gives you plenty of acceleration.

If you check out the EPA's Fuel Economy Guide for 2003 you'll find that while the automatic transmission hybrids do slightly worse on the freeway, the standard transmission models still do better on the freeway.

While it's true that economy is much improved on the TDI's, it seems emissions are still quite high.

A search of the US federal fuel economy site here shows that although the Jetta/Golf/Beetle 4 cyl Gets up to 49 mpg, it also puts out 44-55 tons of nasty smog forming exhaust per 15k miles. Compare this to the Ford Explorer's 21-25 tons. This gives the Jettas and Golfs the worse pollution score of any car sold in the US, even worse than the 12 mpg 12 cyl Ferrari Enzo!

I originally had looked at getting a TDI as a way to use less gas/produce less polution myself (I already walk to work) but this made me change my mind. It would still work as a energy cost reducer, if you don't care about all the nasty pollution you're creating.

I thought the same thing till I stumbeled across the the US DOE's Fueld Economy website. Even among small pickups there isn't a model that gets better than 30MPG. If it weren't for the Toyota RAV4 it would be even worse for SUVs. Crazy.

After looking at the options out there today for fuel efficient vehicles that still maintain their responsiveness, Turbo Diesels come out on top. 45MPG + and still decent performance. Unfortunatly VW is the only company producing any for export to the US. Supposedly Jeep will offer a Diesel Liberty in two years.

The key to fuel economy with internal intermittant combustion engines (like reciprocating gas engines found in cars) is to use them at their maximum power setting with as few combustion events per unit time as possible. In other words, wide open throttle and low RPMs (high manifold pressures). This car gets 128 miles per gallon at 35 MPH, and it's just a pure diesel engine.

Hydrogen is a losing proposition because there isn't any lying around free. It has to be made, and that takes energy. In fact, it takes more energy to make it than could ever be returned by burning it (Thermodynamics... increaing entropy...).

Currently I think that the gas/electric hybrid is the best touring vehicle (as opposed to a commuting vehicle) platform, but I have yet to see one that I like. The Toyota Prius I got to look at closely a few weeks ago was very disappointing. A 1989 Honda Civic CRX gets better milage! The Toyota drive system is overly complicated with a gearbox that allows the wheels to be driven by either the electric motor and/or the gas engine. The added complexity and weight of the gearbox offset any efficiency gains of the electric system.

Honda's hybrid Civic and Insight both have options for manual transmissions. The Civic does better with manual on highways, as does the Insight. The CVTs are much better than traditional automatics, especially in town. Note the tiny difference between highway and city on the Insight CVTs, and the fact that city mileage is better on the CVT civic than the manual civic. And, oddly, the Hybrid Civic CVT gets better mileage in the city than it does on the highway, much like the Toyota Prius. It is also important to note that yearly emissions are lower with the CVTs.

Insight:
61 city/68 hwy (manual) 3.50 tons/yr emissions
57/56 (CVT auto) 3.10 tons/yr emissions

Civic Hybrid:
46/51 (manual) 4.10 tons/yr emissions
48/47 (CVT auto) 4.00 tons/yr emissions

Also, the non-hybrid Civic HX can be ordered with a CVT (good for comparison, and isolation of CVT performance):
36/44 (manual) 4.90 tons/yr
35/40 (CVT auto) 5.20 tons/yr

Numbers are quoted from this site. I really wish they'd label the trim lines-- it's hard to pick one civic from another without them.

CVTs are Continuously Variable Transmissions. The gear ratio is smoothly variable in realtime-- no fixed "gears" like traditional manual and automatic transmissions. This allows the car to select the most efficient gear ratio all the time. It also makes my HX CVT accelerate much more like the manual. No "slip".

Hope that helps!!

the environmental damage caused by junking cars (which as noted above by other posters are recycled at a rate of over 80%) is far less than the damage caused by letting old dirty 7 MPG (that's no joke) Galaxie 500s drive around.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Up until last year, I had a 1957 Ford Custom 500 with well over 100,000 miles on it. With the 312ci engine (5.1 liters for everyone outside the US) and a 3 speed manual transmission, I routinely got 15-20mpg. And I drove it like a maniac, so its not like I babied the thing. I currently have a 1979 Mercedes 450SEL6.9. It's got a 6.9 liter V8 (418ci for everyone in the US) and right around 300 horsepower. The car has just over 100,000 miles on it, and I get around 15mpg in that. My mom used to have a 1978 diesel Mercedes with over 300,000 miles on it. It routinely got around 30mpg.

My wife has a 2001 Focus with under 30,000 miles. It routinely gets 15-18mpg, and leaks oil like you wouldn't beleive. All of the other cars I have (And have had in the past) get nearly as good or better mileage as the new Focus, and they dont leak oil.

So, my old cars get as good mileage as the Focus, are much more reliable reliable, don't leak oil, and cost me a whole lot less to own and operate. So how is owning that nice new Suburban that gets 11mpg better for me or the environment than my old cars?

Oh? It's not a gas guzzler? 12/17 (14 Average) sure looks like to me. That's just about the same as a Cadillac Esclade.

Oh? It's not a gas guzzler? 12/17 (14 Average) sure looks like to me. That's just about the same as a Cadillac Esclade.

Diesel has made much more progress in the past few years as far as an efficient fuel than gas. Try on the Turbo-charged VW Diesel Jetta for a great drive w/ superb miles to the gallon.
One thing I've wondered about with diesels. I'm not adverse to them, having owned and driven one 10 years, but I was comparing fuel economy and emissions for various cars at the DOE's website, and while diesels do much better in mileage than traditional gas engines, they're about the same as hybrids, and aren't quite as good in greenhouse gas emissions, and are frankly pretty bad in the Pounds of Smog-Forming Pollution category.

Jetta Prius
MPG 42/49 52/45 city/highway
SFP 43.7-58.8 0-1.0 smog-forming pollution (lbs./15K miles)
GHG 4.7 4.0 greenhouse gases (tons/year)

Is the smog-forming pollution something inherent in diesel? Or is it better with biodiesel? Or something that can be fixed with better engineering?

The ultimate accessory for any motor-vehicle-needing Green Geek is a Toyota Prius.

The Prius is a SULEV (super-ultra low emission vehicle), which puts out about 90% less pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and hydrocarbons compared with a similarly-sized car, while using about 50% of the fuel and producing about 50% of the carbon dioxide.

These savings come from the use of a drivetrain incorporating an internal combustion engine, electric motor-generators and regenerative braking. You never plug in your Prius, and it has a range of 500 to 600 miles per tank. Needless to say, all of this technology is controlled by a number of computers, and there's a group dedicated to hacks and mods for the Prius.

For more information on this ideal Green Geek car, see this eight page PDF from the U.S. Department of Energy, or this site, which includes more information on the Prius than you probably want.

Yes; we should be acting like spoilt little children, to as much of an extent as our pocketbooks will permit.

It is, after all, the American dream .

My car goes about 300-400 miles on a 15 gallon tank of gas. Imagine how much gas a any kind of helicopter burns in 300 miles keeping itself up and pushing itself through the air, especially with all the crazy turbulence the roters makes.

-your uninformed post

Robinson R-22 - 2 seat Piston Helicopter

Cruise Airspeed @ 70% Power 110 MPH (96 kts)

Average Fuel Consumption 8 to 10 GPH


-people with a clue

GMC K1500 Yukon Denali

EPA MPG - 12 city, 15 highway


-the EPA

So if a R-22 goes 110 miles in an hour at around 9 gallons consumed while a Yukon goes 65 miles in an hour at around 15 gallons consumed, it's plain to see that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. For a huge percentage of americans, driving around in a Yukon is completely acceptable; there's no way that you can say the main problem with a helicopter is fuel economy.

I would say that the number one reason we don't all have helicopters is because of how much maintenance costs. A used R-22 isn't much more than a nice car, and it's really not that hard to learn to fly one, but it's unbelievably expensive to keep the thing in the air.

I do believe the current administration should push more AFV, AND dig for oil in Alaska.

According to the most optimistic estimates, the oil that we might extract from Alaska might, in ten years, reduce our reliance on foreign oil by 2%

By then, we'll be wishing we were digging up some oil underneath those carabou in Alaska.

So you advocate using up our oil reserves rather than the oil reserves in Saudi Arabia? And how is this in our national interest?

The government can't aford to pay for it, so expect oil companies to become "energy companies" and find ways to work with coal, hydrogen, nuclear, etc. power as alternatives if you ever want to see significant improvement.

The government could give tax incentives to companies researching alternative energy sources. They could give tax credits to citizens that bought more fuel-efficient cars. They could put the gas guzzler tax on minivans and SUVs to combat the trend of people who would have been well-served buying gas guzzling behemoths instead.

We could use hemp as an energy source, but I think you're smoking all of it.

Let the ad hominen attacks begin!

In the interim, take your tax cut and buy yourself a tree to hug, it might make you feel better.

And the ad hominen attacks continue... What would make me feel better would be if that money had gone to paying down the national debt. Not only have we not paid down the debt, but the budget surplus built up under Clinton is history, too.

The sources used for this post: A government study of power plant efficiencies, The EV1 specs page and a government report on the efficiency of the 2002 mazda 626 (the most efficient non-HEV sedan this year).

-A coal powered power plant produces 920 kg of CO2/MWh -> 920/1000 = .92 kg / KWh

-An EV1 uses 26 KWh/100 miles -> 26*.92 = 24 kg CO2/100 miles

-average car produces 9 kg CO2/gallon of gas

-A 2002 Mazda 626 gets 1 gallon/26 miles -> 9kg/26 miles.

-Compare: an EV1 gets .24 kg CO2/gallon, a car gets .35 kg CO2/gallon...

So the difference exists, and is actually quite significant, but ultimatly the EV1 gets better fuel mileage. (Mind you, this does not count any of the inefficiencies introduced in the transmission of the electricity, nor does it account for highway driving, i used city driving stats only.)

Speaking of education, take a look at:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/Chevrolet2 001.shtml

According to the EPA, your Silverado gets the worst possible score for air pollution, and its gas mileage is more than 10 mpg worse than Chevy cars from the same year. You are the one who needs to educate himself, and stop justifying your decision with misinformation.

The two-door VW TDIs (the Bug and the Golf) get better mileage than any other car sold in America except for the Insight.

They're also among the least-polluting cars available, though there are cleaner ones out there.

The two-door VW TDIs (the Bug and the Golf) get better mileage than any other car sold in America except for the Insight.

They're also among the least-polluting cars available, though there are cleaner ones out there.

The two-door VW TDIs (the Bug and the Golf) get better mileage than any other car sold in America except for the Insight.

They're also among the least-polluting cars available, though there are cleaner ones out there.

Of course, all hybrid cars still use fossil fuels. According to the EPA, the Jetta's combined MPG is only 45, which is about 10% worse than both Civic Hybrd and Prius (see this list of the all-time best mpg-getting cars).

Other notes: A hybrid (Prius, Insight, Civic Hybrid) does not qualify for an electric vehicle tax credit, but does qualify for a "clean fuel" tax deduction, for up to $2000 (you needn't itemize to take the deduction). A hybrid may or may not qualify you to single-passenger-drive in HOV lanes... in California, it does not. This is typically because hybrids (burning gasoline) are not regarded by the goverment as true "alternative fuel" vehicles.

Disclaimer: I own an Insight, have put almost 50k miles on it and overall I've averaged 74 mpg. That means I spend about half as much on gas as people driving a regular Civic. It is ULEV-rated for emissions and the Insight tops the list of the Top 10 or so most fuel-efficient cars you could ever get in the U.S. I love my car. You could say that makes me a bit biased.

1. 2000-02 Honda Insight 5spd (65 mpg)
2. 1986-87 Chevy Sprint Er (57 mpg)
3. 1988 Chevy Sprint Metro (56 mpg)
4. 2001-02 Honda Insight CVT (56 mpg)
5. 1990-94 Geo Metro XFI (55 mpg)
6. 1986-87 Honda Civic Coupe HF (54 mpg)
7. 1988-89 Honda Civic CRX HF (52 mpg)
8. 1992-95 Honda Civic HB VX (51 mpg)
9. 1990-91 Honda Civic CRX HF (50 mpg)
10. 1985 Chevy Sprint (50 mpg)
11. 1985 Suzuki Sa310 (50 mpg)
12. 2000- Toyota Prius (48 mpg)
13. 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid (48 mpg)

1. 2000-02 Honda Insight 5spd (65 mpg)
2. 1986-87 Chevy Sprint Er (57 mpg)
3. 1988 Chevy Sprint Metro (56 mpg)
4. 2001-02 Honda Insight CVT (56 mpg)
5. 1990-94 Geo Metro XFI (55 mpg)
6. 1986-87 Honda Civic Coupe HF (54 mpg)
7. 1988-89 Honda Civic CRX HF (52 mpg)
8. 1992-95 Honda Civic HB VX (51 mpg)
9. 1990-91 Honda Civic CRX HF (50 mpg)
10. 1985 Chevy Sprint (50 mpg)
11. 1985 Suzuki Sa310 (50 mpg)
12. 2000- Toyota Prius (48 mpg)
13. 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid (48 mpg)

1. 2000-02 Honda Insight 5spd (65 mpg)
2. 1986-87 Chevy Sprint Er (57 mpg)
3. 1988 Chevy Sprint Metro (56 mpg)
4. 2001-02 Honda Insight CVT (56 mpg)
5. 1990-94 Geo Metro XFI (55 mpg)
6. 1986-87 Honda Civic Coupe HF (54 mpg)
7. 1988-89 Honda Civic CRX HF (52 mpg)
8. 1992-95 Honda Civic HB VX (51 mpg)
9. 1990-91 Honda Civic CRX HF (50 mpg)
10. 1985 Chevy Sprint (50 mpg)
11. 1985 Suzuki Sa310 (50 mpg)
12. 2000- Toyota Prius (48 mpg)
13. 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid (48 mpg)

1. 2000-02 Honda Insight 5spd (65 mpg)
2. 1986-87 Chevy Sprint Er (57 mpg)
3. 1988 Chevy Sprint Metro (56 mpg)
4. 2001-02 Honda Insight CVT (56 mpg)
5. 1990-94 Geo Metro XFI (55 mpg)
6. 1986-87 Honda Civic Coupe HF (54 mpg)
7. 1988-89 Honda Civic CRX HF (52 mpg)
8. 1992-95 Honda Civic HB VX (51 mpg)
9. 1990-91 Honda Civic CRX HF (50 mpg)
10. 1985 Chevy Sprint (50 mpg)
11. 1985 Suzuki Sa310 (50 mpg)
12. 2000- Toyota Prius (48 mpg)
13. 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid (48 mpg)

1. 2000-02 Honda Insight 5spd (65 mpg)
2. 1986-87 Chevy Sprint Er (57 mpg)
3. 1988 Chevy Sprint Metro (56 mpg)
4. 2001-02 Honda Insight CVT (56 mpg)
5. 1990-94 Geo Metro XFI (55 mpg)
6. 1986-87 Honda Civic Coupe HF (54 mpg)
7. 1988-89 Honda Civic CRX HF (52 mpg)
8. 1992-95 Honda Civic HB VX (51 mpg)
9. 1990-91 Honda Civic CRX HF (50 mpg)
10. 1985 Chevy Sprint (50 mpg)
11. 1985 Suzuki Sa310 (50 mpg)
12. 2000- Toyota Prius (48 mpg)
13. 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid (48 mpg)

1. 2000-02 Honda Insight 5spd (65 mpg)
2. 1986-87 Chevy Sprint Er (57 mpg)
3. 1988 Chevy Sprint Metro (56 mpg)
4. 2001-02 Honda Insight CVT (56 mpg)
5. 1990-94 Geo Metro XFI (55 mpg)
6. 1986-87 Honda Civic Coupe HF (54 mpg)
7. 1988-89 Honda Civic CRX HF (52 mpg)
8. 1992-95 Honda Civic HB VX (51 mpg)
9. 1990-91 Honda Civic CRX HF (50 mpg)
10. 1985 Chevy Sprint (50 mpg)
11. 1985 Suzuki Sa310 (50 mpg)
12. 2000- Toyota Prius (48 mpg)
13. 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid (48 mpg)

1. 2000-02 Honda Insight 5spd (65 mpg)
2. 1986-87 Chevy Sprint Er (57 mpg)
3. 1988 Chevy Sprint Metro (56 mpg)
4. 2001-02 Honda Insight CVT (56 mpg)
5. 1990-94 Geo Metro XFI (55 mpg)
6. 1986-87 Honda Civic Coupe HF (54 mpg)
7. 1988-89 Honda Civic CRX HF (52 mpg)
8. 1992-95 Honda Civic HB VX (51 mpg)
9. 1990-91 Honda Civic CRX HF (50 mpg)
10. 1985 Chevy Sprint (50 mpg)
11. 1985 Suzuki Sa310 (50 mpg)
12. 2000- Toyota Prius (48 mpg)
13. 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid (48 mpg)

1. 2000-02 Honda Insight 5spd (65 mpg)
2. 1986-87 Chevy Sprint Er (57 mpg)
3. 1988 Chevy Sprint Metro (56 mpg)
4. 2001-02 Honda Insight CVT (56 mpg)
5. 1990-94 Geo Metro XFI (55 mpg)
6. 1986-87 Honda Civic Coupe HF (54 mpg)
7. 1988-89 Honda Civic CRX HF (52 mpg)
8. 1992-95 Honda Civic HB VX (51 mpg)
9. 1990-91 Honda Civic CRX HF (50 mpg)
10. 1985 Chevy Sprint (50 mpg)
11. 1985 Suzuki Sa310 (50 mpg)
12. 2000- Toyota Prius (48 mpg)
13. 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid (48 mpg)

1. 2000-02 Honda Insight 5spd (65 mpg)
2. 1986-87 Chevy Sprint Er (57 mpg)
3. 1988 Chevy Sprint Metro (56 mpg)
4. 2001-02 Honda Insight CVT (56 mpg)
5. 1990-94 Geo Metro XFI (55 mpg)
6. 1986-87 Honda Civic Coupe HF (54 mpg)
7. 1988-89 Honda Civic CRX HF (52 mpg)
8. 1992-95 Honda Civic HB VX (51 mpg)
9. 1990-91 Honda Civic CRX HF (50 mpg)
10. 1985 Chevy Sprint (50 mpg)
11. 1985 Suzuki Sa310 (50 mpg)
12. 2000- Toyota Prius (48 mpg)
13. 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid (48 mpg)

1. 2000-02 Honda Insight 5spd (65 mpg)
2. 1986-87 Chevy Sprint Er (57 mpg)
3. 1988 Chevy Sprint Metro (56 mpg)
4. 2001-02 Honda Insight CVT (56 mpg)
5. 1990-94 Geo Metro XFI (55 mpg)
6. 1986-87 Honda Civic Coupe HF (54 mpg)
7. 1988-89 Honda Civic CRX HF (52 mpg)
8. 1992-95 Honda Civic HB VX (51 mpg)
9. 1990-91 Honda Civic CRX HF (50 mpg)
10. 1985 Chevy Sprint (50 mpg)
11. 1985 Suzuki Sa310 (50 mpg)
12. 2000- Toyota Prius (48 mpg)
13. 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid (48 mpg)

1. 2000-02 Honda Insight 5spd (65 mpg)
2. 1986-87 Chevy Sprint Er (57 mpg)
3. 1988 Chevy Sprint Metro (56 mpg)
4. 2001-02 Honda Insight CVT (56 mpg)
5. 1990-94 Geo Metro XFI (55 mpg)
6. 1986-87 Honda Civic Coupe HF (54 mpg)
7. 1988-89 Honda Civic CRX HF (52 mpg)
8. 1992-95 Honda Civic HB VX (51 mpg)
9. 1990-91 Honda Civic CRX HF (50 mpg)
10. 1985 Chevy Sprint (50 mpg)
11. 1985 Suzuki Sa310 (50 mpg)
12. 2000- Toyota Prius (48 mpg)
13. 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid (48 mpg)

1. 2000-02 Honda Insight 5spd (65 mpg)
2. 1986-87 Chevy Sprint Er (57 mpg)
3. 1988 Chevy Sprint Metro (56 mpg)
4. 2001-02 Honda Insight CVT (56 mpg)
5. 1990-94 Geo Metro XFI (55 mpg)
6. 1986-87 Honda Civic Coupe HF (54 mpg)
7. 1988-89 Honda Civic CRX HF (52 mpg)
8. 1992-95 Honda Civic HB VX (51 mpg)
9. 1990-91 Honda Civic CRX HF (50 mpg)
10. 1985 Chevy Sprint (50 mpg)
11. 1985 Suzuki Sa310 (50 mpg)
12. 2000- Toyota Prius (48 mpg)
13. 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid (48 mpg)

1. 2000-02 Honda Insight 5spd (65 mpg)
2. 1986-87 Chevy Sprint Er (57 mpg)
3. 1988 Chevy Sprint Metro (56 mpg)
4. 2001-02 Honda Insight CVT (56 mpg)
5. 1990-94 Geo Metro XFI (55 mpg)
6. 1986-87 Honda Civic Coupe HF (54 mpg)
7. 1988-89 Honda Civic CRX HF (52 mpg)
8. 1992-95 Honda Civic HB VX (51 mpg)
9. 1990-91 Honda Civic CRX HF (50 mpg)
10. 1985 Chevy Sprint (50 mpg)
11. 1985 Suzuki Sa310 (50 mpg)
12. 2000- Toyota Prius (48 mpg)
13. 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid (48 mpg)

Solar panels at the sea locations provide the energy, albeit slowly, to electrolyze the water to the gaseous components. H 2 and O2.

I think if you re-read the original article you will see that hydrolysis is powered by wave energy, you know, ocean waves, not light waves.

Also, may I point you at a simple explanation of how fuel cells work? It has this cool animated gif, displaying the process. Note: no turbines.

There is this really cool tool on the web, called google, it is a search engine. You can use it to look things up, before you post stuff, preventing you from looking like a complete dope. You should try it out!

Solar panels at the sea locations provide the energy, albeit slowly, to electrolyze the water to the gaseous components. H 2 and O2.

I think if you re-read the original article you will see that hydrolysis is powered by wave energy, you know, ocean waves, not light waves.

Also, may I point you at a simple explanation of how fuel cells work? It has this cool animated gif, displaying the process. Note: no turbines.

There is this really cool tool on the web, called google, it is a search engine. You can use it to look things up, before you post stuff, preventing you from looking like a complete dope. You should try it out!

My camping truck gets about 25 mpg. My daily driver gets even better.

My camping truck gets about 25 mpg. My daily driver gets even better.

• http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehicles/prius/ide x.html, Toyota Prius, currently available
• http://civichybrid.honda.com/, Honda Civic Hybrid, due out RSN, starting to be available for test drives
• http://www.hondacars.com/models/insight/index.html , Honda Insight, currently available
• http://rav4ev.toyota.com/, Toyota RAV4 EV (it's not a hybrid, sorry), only available in CA currently
• http://uktoyotaestimasite.tripod.com/, Toyota Estima, hybrid minivan. Not currently scheduled for release in the US
• http://hybridford.com/, Ford Escape, SUV, planned to be available in 2003. Ford licensed the Toyota HEV system for this

• http://www.ucsusa.org/vehicles/0mapveh.html, http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/, The EPA's Clean Vehicle Guide
• http://carpoint.msn.com/browse/win_4018922.asp, http://www.cars.com/carsapp/national/?srv=parser&a ct=display&tf=/advice/bestworst/mileage/best_worst . mpl, 2002 overall fuel economy results
• http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml, Vehicle fuel economy by class
• http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/drive.shtml, Tips to improve your gas mileage
• http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/auto/cafe.html, http://www.ucsusa.org/vehicles/CAFE.html, Information about the CAFE standards
• http://www.greenercars.org/, The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)