Slashdot Mirror


Modified Prius gets up to 180 Miles Per Gallon

shupp writes "The NY Times (free reg. required) reports in that some folks are not content with the no-plug-in rule that both Honda and Toyota endorse. By modifying a Prius so that it can be plugged in, Ron Gremban of CalCars states 'I've gotten anywhere from 65 to over 100 miles per gallon'. The article also reports that 'EnergyCS, a small company that has collaborated with CalCars, has modified another Prius with more sophisticated batteries; they claim their Prius gets up to 180 mpg, and can travel more than 30 miles on battery power.'"

14 of 907 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Oil industry? by zarthrag · · Score: 3, Interesting

    More importantly, why has Honda/Toyota decided not to adopt these as factory options?

    --
    Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
  2. I own a prius, so don't get me wrong... by SuperficialRhyme · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not trying to bash what these guys have done - but isn't plugging it in and then looking at MPG very decieving?

    On the other hand, it would be interesting to see how the $/mile stack up to see whether or not a plugged in prius can be more efficient in terms of cost.

  3. About bloody time! by koreth · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The "no plug in" rule was always a big turnoff for me when I thought about whether my next car would be a Prius (or some other hybrid.) I have a bunch of solar cells on the roof of my house generating power, so during the summer, if I can plug my car in, it's like getting free fuel.

    Well, okay, "free" in the sense that I've already paid for the solar setup -- but with oil prices rising, I suspect charging a car from my solar cells would make them pay for themselves a couple years ahead of schedule.

  4. Cost goes UP! by dlakelan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At approximately 112000 BTU/gallon of gasoline that's about 33kWh/gal. In California where the prices are about $0.12/kWh electric, it costs you about $4.00/gallon saved. With gas prices at about $2.40 in CA that's about $1.60 extra per gallon saved.

    For those of you who say "fuel savings at any cost" consider that most of the california electricity is generated by burning natural gas, and that there are considerable losses involved in generating and transmitting the electricity.

    Nothing to see here at the moment. Wait until the price of gas goes to $5.00 and then buy some solar panels to charge your car (or at least net-meter your electricity).

    --
    ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) http://www.endpointcomputing.com a scientific approach to custom computing.
    1. Re:Cost goes UP! by SagSaw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At approximately 112000 BTU/gallon of gasoline that's about 33kWh/gal. In California where the prices are about $0.12/kWh electric, it costs you about $4.00/gallon saved. With gas prices at about $2.40 in CA that's about $1.60 extra per gallon saved.

      One thing you left out is that automotive internal combustion engines typically have an efficiency of somewhere around 20%. I hope that the charger + batteries + electric motor have a better effeciency that than. I'll pull a number out of the air and say that 40% of the energy supplied to the charger will eventually show up in the energy supplied by the output shaft of the motor. Using these numbers, one gallon of gasoline will give you 6.6kWh at the engine output. Using 40% efficiency of the electric system, you need to purchase 16.5kWh of electricity to provide the same 6.6kWh at the motor output. Using your rates, this ends up being about $1.98 for the same amount of energy as produced by a gallon of gasoline in the engine.

      The good news is that not everybody has to pay that much for electricity. Where I live, I only pay about $0.07/kWh. This means that I can buy a gallon's worth of electricity for $1.16, or about half what I paid today for gasoline.

      It gets better, though. The power company could charge a different rate for EV battery charging, with the stipulation (enforced at the meter) that current only be drawn during off-peak hours. Or, they could set-up an 'auction' system where I plug my car in and say how much I'm willing to pay to charge my car tonight. My charger will be supplied with power only when rates drop below my price. If I still have 80% of my range unused, I'd only be willing to pay a low price. If I only have 20% of my range remaining, I'll pay a higher price. If I really need to charge the car now, I'll plug it into a standard outlet.

      One other thing: When it comes to charging a battery, there isn't anything magical about 120/240VAC @ 50/60Hz. It's entirely possible that the power company could provide a seperate, lower quality of service, line for battery charging and simialr uses where the voltage and frequency could vary +/-30% without breaking anything. The same logic means it should be easier to charge your EV from off-grid sources than to power your house from an off-grid source.

      --
      Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
  5. Re:Misleadning by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Interesting
    If you drive 15 miles to the office, plug in, then drive 15 miles home, plug in, your gasoline consumption for the week drops to zero.

    And your grid electricity consumption goes way, way up.

    Tradeoffs.

  6. On Discovery Channel last night.... by failedlogic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I saw a French research company that is making cars run off of compressed air. Using a Carbon-fibre based compressed air canister, the PSI in the tank is about around 3500 or 3800. There is enough air in the tank to drive about 130 to 180 km @ 60 KM/H.

    This is really interesting. The technology is out now. And, AFAIK, this form of transportation is emmissionless.

    Just as a curiosity, though, why type of hybrid technologies do we have for *airplanes*. Our economy relies so heavily on planes that we need to find alternatives. IANA-Engineer, but I doubt a 747 would run on solar.

    1. Re:On Discovery Channel last night.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just as a curiosity, though, why type of hybrid technologies do we have for *airplanes*. Our economy relies so heavily on planes that we need to find alternatives. IANA-Engineer, but I doubt a 747 would run on solar.

      You certainly are no engineer. You may not be very bright, either. I did a quick google on '777 seating capacity' to start thinking about your querry. One of the first page links takes me to the following page: http://www.aua.com/at/eng/Austrian/Fleet/boeing+77 7-+200/.

      Wow, that seems to have just about all the specs we need. The 777 burns 6,000 Kg/Hr worst case. It carries 344 passengers max and 17 crew. It can travel 940 Km/Hr. It has a max range of 11,000Km.

      Lets do some back-of-the-napkin rough math. Say that the 777 takes a 940Km hop with full passenter load just to make the maths easy. That is a 1 hour hop. Lets add 20 minutes for flying the departure, approach, and taxiing. We'll overstate the fuel burn because taxiing doesnt burn 6,000Kg/hr, but oh well.

      In 1 hour and 20 minutes we'll burn roughly 8000Kg of jet fuel. Just for sake of my sanity, I'll convert that to lbs. The burn is 13227 lbs of fuel. I recall that JetA is roughly 6.5 Lbs/Gallon. So we'll burn 2035 gallons of fuel during our little jaunt. Now remember that we carried 361 people 584 miles on 2035 gallons. Thats 210824 passenger miles on 2035 gallons, or roughly 104 miles per gallon per passenger.

      In the US, nearly all flights are longer than 600 miles, so these numbers would be better as the longer you fly at cruise the better the number would be.

      Still think that Jets are abysmal in terms of fuel consumption? What we should be doing is upgrading all of the old jets to the newer, more efficient boeing and airbus designs and retiring the old pigs.

  7. Re:Misleadning by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Interesting
    And your grid electricity consumption goes way, way up.

    Tradeoffs.
    Up here, at less than 6 cents a kwh, and $4.50 a gallon for gas, running the car on cheap hydro sounds pretty good.
  8. Pure Electric is Close by BoRegardless · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The book "The Bottomless Well" noted that if you get batteries good enough, meaning light enough and small enough volume, able to travel for a normal day's travel (say 250 miles) & inexpensive enough, to fit in a car that you can potentially drop your cost per mile for power to 10% of that using gasoline today.

    How? Off peak power now at night (when stationary power plants would love to sell you power) is $.03-$.04 per KWHr, versus about $.40/kwhr for gasoline.

    Altair Nanotechnologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:ALTI) received 2 patents on a way to make Li-ion batteries that charge in minutes and hold 3 times the charge in January 2005, and Fujitsu just announced they will start shipping batteries probably licensed under this patent in 2006.

    All-electric cars are FAR FAR closer to practicality than people think because of these dramatic technology breaththroughs.

  9. Re:Electric power != mpg by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Actually, gettting 180mpg by using utility juice is actually very very smart. In some states, one can specifically contract that all your electricity is bought from Green sources (windmills, whatever) so even the electricity you're using isn't fossil fuel based.

    I find this "hacking" of the Prius really exciting, and a good protent for the future. If anything, toyota should spin this into a sales pitch:

    "Buy a Prius and get 60mpg right out of the gate. But if you would like to save even more on gas, get the Prius Extension Kit for $49.95 and draw electricity form your home to your Prius, doubling the car's mileage."

    "But wait - there's MORE! with the Prius Pro Developers Kit, you can swap out the batteries for other even more powerful batteries, and not just doubling your mileage, but TRIPLLING your mileage!"

    "Why WAIT? Call Now! Operators Are Standing By!"

    Seriously: just like ever punk ass kid can dope up his Honda Civic lifback into a firebreathing psych machine, you should be able to totally juice the crap out of a Prius.

    this is the kind of technology that was envisioned years ago by the Rocky Mountian Institute's notions of a hypercar.

    I want one of those...

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  10. Public impression? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A lot of the old pure-battery cars were marred by the fact that you couldn't go very far on them.

    The hybrid concept is great, but I imagine manufacturers wanted to distance it from the pure-electric cars. A lot of people would have assumed that if a car had a power cord, it would have the same problems as the pure-electric systems.

    So instead, you expose people to gasoline-only cars with relatively high gas-milages. Later on, once people have accepted that these new things work well enough, you can add a power cord. And even market it as "New and Improved!"

    Basically, you don't want the public to assume that the power cord limits where you can go with it.

  11. Re:Plug in.... by RabidMonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is the same argument I use with my current car - a TDI (Turbo-Direct-Injection) Dieel Jetta.

    It costs about $1,800 more to get the Diesel. I've started keeping track of my KM travelled and how much it costs vs. a gasoline car and so far I've saved myself $126.42 with my diesel ... in 1 month. At that rate, I'll have paid off the difference in 14.3 months.

    But, even better and more important to me is that I'm using less fuel, and using less fuel more efficiently, which is producing less pollutants and emissions. Not to mention the fact that making diesel uses less energy (less refining needed) than gasoline.

    So, even though it costs more money to buy a diesel, I was willing (And continue to be willing) to pay a little more to make a little less pollution.

    Reading life after the oil crash really helped change my mentality about fuel and energy use. Shifting my energy use to more electricity and less fossil fuels means that, while I'm still using energy, I'm using a cleaner source of it. A lot of the power in SW Ontario comes from either Hydroelectricty or Nuclear power which is considerably cleaner than burning fossil fuels.

    I guess it all comes down to how much you'd change your lifestyle to help cut back on energy use, and how much of your own money you'd spend to do it.

    --
    We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
  12. Where to put nuclear waste by The+Monster · · Score: 3, Interesting
    except they really haven't found a safe place for it yet,
    If you can't think of anything better, how about encasing the waste in bricks (I'm thinking ceramic would be good) and dumping it in a deep ocean subduction location like the Marianas Trench, whence it will slowly be pushed into the mantle and melted down, and in the meantime is so deep beneath the surface of the ocean that if anything did leak out it would be diluted to background level before it got far enough to make a difference to surface life?
    --

    [100% ISO 646 Compliant]
    SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.