Slashdot Mirror
Build Your Own Hybrid-Electric Car?
BlueJay465 writes "On almost every news outlet, everyone is talking about the price of oil, both foreign and domestic. This sent me to do some research on what it would take to keep the investment in my current vehicle, while getting the added benefits of hybrid-electric technology at the lowest price. One company, Sigma Automotive, has already jumped on that bandwagon, and will soon be offering a kit for your car engine that will boost performance and increase fuel-economy by adding all the extra electronics, hardware and capacity (avail. Q3-Q4 2004). My question is, how much would it cost to really 'Do It Yourself' using off-the-shelf parts?"
A performance part to me.....Hell, the website is devoted to such parts
$2800 MSRP (according to the FAQ) seems like a hell of a lot to me, considering the fact that it is not a true hybrid conversion, but rather, a bolt-on part.
But really, how many people will spend that much for what seems to be a little gain in performance? Maybe the tax break helps?
-thewldisntenuff
My MythTV HowTo
It may not be too prevalent in electric motors, but there's a demon that lives in power transmissions, especially where shafts are involved. It's called tortional vibration. It's a close relative to harmonic vibration of the type that tears poorly designed bridges down in heavy winds. Automotive companies are able to tweak a design until all or most of the tortional vibration is ironed out, then they mass produce. Building a one-off unit, you'll have to resolve these issues, as they may crop up, on your own.
BTM
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
Grease Car offers conversion kits to run your diesel car off of vegetable oil for a mere $800. It may seem like a half-baked idea, but it's really not; also, most restaurants will give you their used oil for free, and after filtering you have a virtually unlimited fuel supply. Saves you money, saves the environment, and helps eliminate our oil dependancy.
Remove the main pulley on the engine, and replace it with a special toothed one for this rig. Remove the alternator. Hell, remove the starter while you're at it. Put the special bracket on the engine. Mount the Integrated Starter Generator (the term has been around long before this product was announced) on the bracket. Use the toothed belt to connect the ISG to the main pulley. Mount the electronics box and connect it to the whole thing. Congratulations: you now have what's known as a light hybrid vehicle. The ISG can provide regenerative braking and off-the-line torque. Technically, you can kill the engine while you're sitting at the light, and the ISG has enough horsepower to spin the engine to operating speed (roll-starting it, essentially) and get you started off the line.
Ford has been playing with a prototype system similar to this. They got about 15% improvement in fuel economy. Considering the increased costs involved, they decided it wasn't worth it. Not for a measly 3-4 MPG on an Escape. For an Excursion, you're talking 1-2 more MPG.
Don't get me wrong; this helps. Just not as much as you might hope. It's a good step in the right direction, in an attempt to help reduce the fuel consumption of existing vehicles. And, as they mention, since there are NO internal modifications to the engine, it's a bolt-on accessory which your typical shade-tree mechanic could probably install on a Saturday.
... by the Dew of Mountains the thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning
Having looked recently at the state of California's DMV website that there are a number of ILEV (compressed natural gas, electricity, etc.) equivalents of current vehicles (Dodge Caravan, etc.). Are these just normal cars, made to fit ILEV standards by use of kits as well? If you're in California this may interest you, since ILEV vehicles (assuming they pass SULEV standards, which most ILEV *and* hybrid cars do) can drive in the HOV lanes w/o meeting HOV passenger standards.
:/
Unfortunately, though I've heard some debate on this regarding current events, the state of California does not allow hybrid cars in the HOV lanes w/o a second passenger. This seems funny, since my Toyota Prius gets ~50 MPG, meaning its consuming less than half that - and often closer to a third - of most large SUVs. One person using gas in a 50 mpg vehicle still means less consumption than 2 using a 15-20, and the whole point of the HOV lane was to promote conservation.
Moo
How is this 'interesting' when its a complete tangent towards a plenty-publicized political agenda?
Perhaps because the issue of the price of oil and US wars abroad can't really be separated?
Perhaps because his point is that its sad that the US has to go to war to finally make Americans consider wasting the planet's resources less?
Dixie College in St. George, Utah offers a class where you provide your own pickup truck, and make the truck completely electric.
You use a pickup truck because the allows you to fill the bed with batteries (1 layer deep) and then build a nice looking cover for it and still use the bed of the truck.
It is all electric, not hybrid.
The cost is $8,000, not including the vehicle.
What I really want to know is if hybrids built using Toyota's hybrid engine, which is a FULL hybrid (meaning it can operate on electricity only, using no gas), can be "filled" with electricity?
For instance, if fully charged it can go 50 miles on electricity only, can I plug it in every night and go 50 miles a day and never use gas?
Then, maybe you could build a small trailer like they pull behind Goldwing motorcycles and extend your range...
Now the state govt. has stepped in and want him to pay state fuel tax on the fuel what he makes and uses himself....
If he were making it and selling it to others, I could see their point...but jeez!
I bought plans to build a hybrid car back in the seventies. (I didn't build it.) It had a body created by carving urethane and covering it with fiberglass. (Burt Rutan build airplanes this way) It had a generator to charge batteries and was totally driven by an electric motor. I seem to recall that the cheapest way to build it was to buy a 'wrecker' and harvest it for parts.
In theory, you could build a car very cheaply but of course the amount of labor involved is huge.
Every university seems to be building solar cars these days. That may be a good place to get information.
Another resource for that kind of construction might be the local experimental aircraft association. The reason for this is that you want your car to be light and aircraft are light and strong.
Still way too expensive for the benifits (in terms of dollars and environmental impact). A Honda Civix LX 4-door with 4 speed automatic transmission only costs ~$16,700 vs ~$21,000 for a Civic Hybrid CVT. The difference in fuel economy? Less than 20% (38 vs 47 highway). The cost of all of those electronics, batteries, and other components both in terms of energy input as well as disposal hazards probably is not a huge net win for the environment. I would like to see a total environmental impact study done by a non-biased actuary to see how much impact hybrid technology really can provide. Btw the difference between the retail for this package and the difference in prices on the Civics is basically the labor for installation.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
>I would be willing to hear the argument that the gain of running the engine at peak efficiency would be offset by the losses in the motor-generator pair. (If so, why has it been the standard technology in railway traction for over fifty years?)
Some data points, that could point either way: Toyota claims to be getting 40% efficiency from the Prius gas engine, which if true is dramatically superior to conventional designs and is a big enough win to make up for a lot of motor-generator-charge-discharge loss.
On the other hand, don't railroads use series hybrids because the size and cost of a transmission that could start a stationary freight train was infeasible?
What confused me about their website was that they kept talking about regenerative braking but didn't describe any interface to the car's brakes (and if they did it would make me nervous).
>I2R losses system wide
At only 48 volts that's something to worry about. There's a reason the Prius uses a nominal 288 volt drive system.
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
For an Excursion, you're talking 1-2 more MPG.
Don't count on that. Much of the fuel costs on a big vehicle like an Excursion are spent in starting it from a dead stop. I own a diesel Excursion, and it can get 22 mpg (usually more like 18.5) on the highway, but get into stop and go, and it plummets to 13.5. The gas ones are much worse.
Ford has a prototype transmission for the "SuperDuty" chassis (F-[250,350,450,550], and Excursion) that uses pressurized nitrogen to effect regenerative braking, and use the captured energy to get the rig rolling again. Apparently it makes quite a difference, but it's not in production. Personally, I'd like to see a full diesel electric traction system.
I've worked on a hybrid vehicle conversion project before. We used a belt just slightly larger than that which handled 60hp just fine. Most belts that size are not simply made from rubber--there's a lot of reinforcement buried inside.
In theory, any tie-in to the brake system will suffice. A simple splice into the brake light wire will tell you if the driver is hitting the brakes or not (though that's probably not a very reliable way to do it!).
The 48 volts could be because, well, the duty of the electric motor is nowhere near what it would be in a true hybrid. So a balance of cost, efficiency, safety and power was likely found at 48 volts.
(Just guessing, though)
=Smidge=
This allows the generator to run at optimimun efficiency (rpm) and not waste energy like conventional vehicles. Add regenerative brakes to make it even better. The only hard part of this approach is connecting the electric motor to the car's current transmission.
If you want to really save money and do something cool, go for an all-electric car. With lithium battery chemistries, the range is good. There are plenty of companies that offer help in retrofitting old ICE cars to be electric. The big problem here is that automotive-scale lithium batteries are not in mass-production yet so they are very expensive. The battery pack on a lithium-powered electric could cost in the tens of thousands. This is not because the materials that make up a lithium battery are inherently expensive; they just aren't mass-produced in large enough sizes and quantities yet.
As a further advantage, all-electric cars have much less maintenance. Hybrid cars should have more maintenance than regular ICE cars because hybrids have everything a regular ICE car has, plus all the electric stuff, plus a complicated way to interface the two of them.
Maybe if you do almost all stop-and-go city driving, hybrids have some advantage, but I think they are just a boondoggle. If you don't want to buy gas, then go 100% electric, but don't think that bolting on a bunch of electric parts to your current ICE is going to do much more than have you pay a hefty up-front fee to save a trickle of gas over the next decade.
I wouldn't care if it took 100K miles to regain my investment.
This is a website for geeks. I personally would rather drive at 40mpg and pay 3000 to the engineers and company that designed a hybrid engine than drive at 35mpg and pay 1000 to the billionaire aristocrat oil tycoons.
Wouldn't you?
You might want to try one of today's diesel engines (European diesels, not the big 3 truck diesel crap). You'll find your previous perceptions blown out of the water. I can blow about 70% - 80% of todays vehicles away off the line with my diesel Passat.
Matter of fact, if you put a diesel engine in the Toyota Prius you would get better mileage than you do with that hybrid.
Really, the best hybrid out there is Ford's escape, the rest are just posers. A good diesel engine can still get better mileage than any of those lousy hybrids. Within 4 years the diesel engine will pollute less than the gasoline engine.
We could grow almost all the oil we need, certainly enough to make a huge dent in imports, on a couple hundred square miles of the Senora Desert. I know it's ecologically sensitive but I think for oil independence the scorpions, mice and other critters can just deal with it.
Why aren't we doing this now? Guess it couldn't be because we have an oil family with connections to the Saudi Royal family in office? Or big oil companies with too much influence over elected officials? Nah, must be some other really good reason.
I've talked to these people, I think they could really do it. Probably could've built the whole project for about half of what we've spent on Iraq. So, which would get us farther? Invading Iraq or cutting back on our oil imports?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
1. US is expected to consume an average of average 20.43 million barrels per day this year.
4. Therefore the US would need to produce approximately 510 million gallons of biological oil to supply it's current demand. (Assuming all oil is used for cars. Which I know it's not)
2. A barrel of oil contains 42 gallons (159 liters) will yield between 19 - 20 gallons (75 liters) of gasoline.
3. Biodiesel yield = oil yield x 0.8 approx. http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html
5. Rice will produce almost twice as much oil per acre as soy beans (88 gallons to 48 gallons)
6. Rapeseed will produce 127 gallons of oil per acre.
7. The Oil Palm produces 635 gallons of oil per acre.
8. The US would need to havest 6283 square miles of rapeseed per day to supply it's current demands.
9. That translates to 2.3 million square miles of rapeseed per year.
10. That's the equivalent of planting and clear cutting Texas 10 times a year.
Ah, but there is an NHRA sanctioned body named the National Electric Drag Racing Association which drag races EV's
See: http://www.nedra.com/
There's a company called TransRevolution which has produced an Infinitely Variable Transmission (IVT) using gears and not a belt system as is used by most CVTs (Continuously Variable Transmissions) on the market right now. They currently have a prototype functioning in a Dodge Ram and they're working on a second design presently.
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
I think that Internal Combustion needs to be cast aside in favor of gas turbine engines like those used in helicopters. The power to weight ratio available with a gas turbine is generally much better than that of an internal combustion engine. Mass produced parts made of ceramics and possibly plated with amorphous metals could withstand the high heat and a lengthy undercarriage exhaust system could dissipate the heat to currently accepted levels.
The problem with this idea is that a gas turbine runs at a certain optimal RPM defined by its shape and general design. So you'd need an infinitely variable transmission in order to maintain the gas turbine at its optimal RPM. You'd also need a strong enough turbine to climb a 40% grade with 2000 pounds of car, 800 pounds of passengers and 400 pounds of cargo. The important thing to remember is that it's the rotational action of the shaft which is tapped for kinetic motion and not the forced-air exhaust.
I posted about this in another comment, but: TransRevolution has a prototype IVT in a Dodge Ram, and it supposedly demonstrates an infinite number of positive and negative (reverse) gear ratios including neutral, using a gear mechanism and not a belt mechanism as is used by most CVTs (Continuously Variable Transmission) on the market right now. So it would seem ideal to be paired with a gas turbine engine. The trick will be getting enough air to the combustion chamber at the proper pressure, without sucking small children into the blender-like engines of their mom's minivan.
Continuous-burn engines burn much more cleanly than the intermittent-burn of internal combustion engines. Here's a demonstration of the dirtyness of intermittent burns: Strike a match, watch it. It smokes initially when you strike it and for a moment while it gets up to temperature. Let it burn. No smoke, right? It just burns, nicely and cleanly. Well, blow it out. Smokes again, right? That middle stage where everything is burning nicely and cleanly never happens in an internal combustion engine, which makes the exhaust byproducts very dirty. To clean this dirtyness (as it were), all modern vehicles use a catalytic converter. Catalytic converters are usually just plates of platinum which react with many of the dirty particles left over from the incomplete combustion of the fuel in an internal combustion engine. The "dirt" sticks to these platinum plates, and doesn't get emitted into the air. A continuous burn engine won't encourage us to waste precious metals because the exhaust will be clean and pure.
Compression ratios inside of gas turbine engines allow them to be fed by fuels such as kerosene and even paraffin, not to mention diesel fuel which is even thinner than either of those. So how about a diesel-powered gas turbine engine (electric starter/drive assist for extra horsepower) running on soy or hemp biodiesel or straight vegetable oil?
The key challenges in gas turbine engines are the heat, the rotational speeds involved, and the fuel/oil delivery system.
At over 100K RPM and stainless steel parts will start to expand, but this is overcome by using ceramics and/or amorphous metals to make your parts. Amorphous metal and ceramic parts also stand up to repeated heat cycling and a wide range of heat conditions. Fuel and oil delivery near the combustion chamber will have to be high-temperature tubing of some kind, but preferrably with clear (or translucent) tubing at a safe distance so you can monitor fluid supply.
Say, I don't suppose you know how to write a grant proposal?
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.