Modded Hybrid Cars Get Up to 250 MPG

artemis67 writes "Politicians and automakers say a car that can both reduce greenhouse gases and free America from its reliance on foreign oil is years or even decades away. Ron Gremban says such a car is parked in his garage. It looks like a typical Toyota Prius hybrid, but in the trunk sits an 80-miles-per-gallon secret -- a stack of 18 brick-sized batteries that boosts the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even less fuel. Gremban, an electrical engineer and committed environmentalist, spent several months and $3,000 tinkering with his car."

Comments

Nothing to see here, move along...

[hendrik42]

VW is selling 84 MPG vehicles since '99 http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/marev iew/mauto497.htm The problem is not really making a high MPG car, it is that people, especially in the US, don't want to buy them. Not even the best technology can make an energy efficient car handle like a porsche or sound like a truck.

Re:There's still pollution, though

[dougmc]

A car's internal combustion engine will generate a LOT more pollution per unit of energy than a power plant.

I've heard this claim before, but can you actually provide any sort of proof to back it up? I suspect you can't, but I'd like to be proven wrong.

I do believe that the generators down at the power plant are in general more efficient than the engine in your car (though it's tricky to make an apples to apples comparison, as few power plants run on gasoline (though some probably do run on diesel)) but I suspect it's not a LOT more efficient.

Also, you were talking about `pollution per unit of energy' not efficiency, though in practice I suspect the two are just different ways of looking at the same thing -- after all, power plants will burn a given fuel in the same way that a car engine will, so the waste products will be the same. The power plant may be somewhat better maintained, however, and can have more things similar to a catalytic converters on a car.

And even if the power plant pollutes just as much as a car engine for a given amount of energy, there's another advantage -- the polution is generally produced away from the city, which helps keep the polution around the people who actually use the cars down.

Not to mention that electricity can also come from cleaner sources like hydro or nuclear or whatnot.

That's certainly true. Alas, not much of the US's power comes from things like this.

Re:Of course, that's cheating ...

[qbwiz]

Unfortunately, assuming 36 kWh per gallon of gasoline, and $.12 per kWh of electricity, the equivalent of 1 gallon of gas in electricity costs $4.32. This doesn't take into account relative efficiencies, but electricity is definitely not free.

Re:So like...

[hoka]

You arn't missing anything. I think its a big problem with the car industry and other fanatics in general (and abstractly a problem with marketing really), instead of touting real benefits of a given product they just tout some numbers that make it sound like its the best thing sinced sliced butter or XOR. The current problem with these hybrids is that they are mostly more expensive than pure gas vehicles, and the costs can't be recouped unless you put in some insane driving time on them. Theres also been a lot of talk about how dangerous the batteries are and how costly it will be to get rid of them once they can't hold a charge anymore. From reading TFA it seems like all this guy did was rig in a bunch of extra batteries to gain some extra mileage, which doesn't really do anything worth a damn, since those batteries still have to be charged. I would be more impressed personally if they had come up with something that allows you to charge the batteries while the vehicles in use (such as the brake-chargers that the Honda hybrids used), or some other technology that makes the batteries more bio-safe/longer lasting. I'm moreso looking forward to seeing progress made in Biodiesal before hybrids/pure electrical, since they attack the problem in (what I feel) is a better manner.

I like these folks' idea:

[Bobzibub]

http://www.e-traction.com/TheWheel.htm

Put the motor in the hub. No drive train! AWD!

All I need is some big bucks to get a welding torch and put 4 in some old jalopy. (And some batteries..)

Anyone know what these things go for? They can use a lot of juice and put out a lot of power.

Cheers!
-b

Re:That's all good, but..

[k98sven]

The inevitable smart-ass question of "Oh, but that electricity has to come from somewhere!!".

Consider this:
Energy content of gasoline: ~45 MJ/kg
Density of gasoline: 737 kg/m3
1 cubic meter = 264.172051 gallons, equals 2.79 MJ/gallon.

Now 1 kWh is exactly 3.6 MJ. Electricity costs (let's exaggerate) 30 cents per kWh.

What do you pay for gas?

Now add to that the facts that:
1) It is easier to clean up a handfull of power-plants than a millions cars distributed over the whole country.

2) Electricity doesn't have to come from fossil fuel sources

3) Even if it does, power plants still produce energy more efficiently than an automobile engine.

Something's always bugged me about hybrids ...

[Lemurmania]

I've never seen anyone address the issue of the batteries. So I save a lot of gas by driving a hybrid, and I'm doing good by the enviroment, right?

What about the batteries? Aren't most batteries toxic as hell? Isn't the manufacture and disposal of batteries a colossal headache? Am I really doing anything productive at all, trading a few gallons of Saudi crude for a lithium/ion toxic waste site? Somebody, please, set me straight. What do they do with the batteries?

Oh, and what if you live in a place with real winters? Last I heard, batteries die a quick and silent death in subzero conditions.

Re:That's all good, but..

[ArbitraryConstant]

"Even if it does, power plants still produce energy more efficiently than an automobile engine."

Everything except natural gas (which is running out and expensive) is stuck below about 35% efficient. Coal power plants a bit more efficient than an engine, but once you factor in transmission losses and storage losses it doesn't really look that good. That, and coal is a very dirty source of power (eg it releases lots of particulates some of them radioactive). The only viable large scale alternative is nuclear, and it's not exactly cheap.

Also, the transmission infrastructure can't take a significant number of people doing this.

Re:So like...

[sillybilly]

Yup, like parent said it, mpg is always a tradeoff between comfort/utility and efficiency. The hard part is providing luxury while having efficiency. There is a fine balance, and the Toyota Corolla with a 40mpg, or the hybrids, strike that balance a lot better than either a 10mpg super luxury SUV or a 1986 Geo Metro. Not to say the Geo Metro isn't quite a luxury from a buggy horse, or even the Ford T-model. I think you should be proud to own such a 1986 vehicle, but still know that you could get that 1986 vehicle to either get more mpg at same comfort level, or more comfort at same mpg, these days.
  A solar panel car can give you quite a lot of mpg because it uses no liquid fuel, but try flooring it and see if you win a dragrace with it. You also don't get much of a legroom in a solar car.

Re:So like...

[dr_dank]

Let's force the US to allow the importing of the smartcar.

Smartcars do well in Europe since most cars are very small (Citroens, Fiat Pandas, and the like) and there are fewer of them. Not many cars will be much bigger than yours, save for the occasional Mercedes or tractor-trailer.

The US is far different. Even in times of record high gas prices, SUVs are still selling since many people have the idea that size=safety. Just like the cold war arms race, no one wants a wimpy car that doesn't stand a chance against an encounter with an Escalade.

Even compared to other new non hybrids.....

[Original Buddha]

...it's not worth it. You can get a non hybrid Civic for $14k that gets 32/38 milage. The hybrid Civic runs $6k more but gets 10mpg more. How many years does it take you to break even on the gas costs?

Re:Even compared to other new non hybrids.....

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Um- How much money do you save recycling aluminum? How much do you get paid to drive to the city facility to get rid of old paint and batteries instead of throwing them out? How much do you save by (Name any act that is helpful to the enviornment)?
Doing the right thing isn't always about saving money....
I usually plow snow in the winter as a second job (Find me another second job where you make $50 and hour to drive around in a truck smoking cigarettes and listening to music) but I almost never drive my plow truck in the summer. Is at a big, comfy F350 dually crew cab? Yes. Can I afford to gas it and drive it to work everyday? Yes. Do I? No. I sometimes ride my bike, sometimes carpool and sometimes drive my car. But my big, comfy (I am 6'4" so a F350 is nice for me) truck at home all winter. Why? Because I feel a responsibility for the Earth

Re:Even compared to other new non hybrids.....

[jcr]

You realize that if gas gets that high (and I don't doubt that it will!) that our entire economy will collapse, right?

Nonsense. If fuel prices keep rising, then we'll steam crude oil out of tar sands and shale. Canada has about as much oil as Saudi Arabia, it's just more expensive to extract.

It's nothing more than an engineering problem. When the cost of energy from oil exceeds the cost of other sources over time, we'll start using those other sources.

-jcr

Re:Even compared to other new non hybrids.....

[Listen Up]

When talking about the economic behaviors of population groups it's pretty much all about money. Very few people are going to spend oodles of extra cash simply so they can get kudos from some group of whacko environmentalists; the benefit has to be more immediate, tangible, and proven to actually work.

Hybrid cars aren't any of these things. They're a waste of resources, a waste of tax dollars (subsidies!), and worst of all - they aren't that much more efficient than an economy sedan. Big whoop."

Using the word 'whacko' immediately discredits your post. Your feelings/opinions are clearly defined. Using the term 'big whoop' seriously questions your age and/or maturity.

My wife's Honda Insight has a lifetime fuel economy of 61 MPG for over 120,000 miles. What economy sedan gets that fuel economy? None. My wife also reduced her fuel costs per month from $240 to $80. But, the main reason she bought it is because she cares about the environment. The Honda Insight is also an SULEV. The fuel cost savings were a great benefit. If it was safe to do so, both her and I would ride our bikes to work, but we cannot. If it was all about the money, she would have considered buying a VW TDI with similar fuel economy. There are absolute and definable benefits to owning and driving a Hybrid.

That's great. But what you have to understand is that your feelings are just that - your feelings. No one else is obligated to feel the same way you do about "the Earth", and most people are going to make the rational economic choice rather than the irrational one.

If you want people to join you in saving the planet, you're going to have to show them how it personally benefits them, most likely by putting cash back in their wallets. Telling them it'll "help the ecology" or some such ephemeral rot isn't going to impress them.

That is also false. Hybrids were beginning to become popular before the recent gas cost increases. And they will continue to remain popular even after Iraqi/Alaskan/etc. oil starts flowing into the US in the near future. In this case, your feelings/opinions are not based on fact. And what you believe is 'rational' and 'irrational' is completely subjective. Your views have already been clearly defined. It does not mean anyone else shares your feelings/opinions nor does it make them any more vaild.

To share a point, EVERYWHERE my wife and I drive in her Honda Insight, we get a ton of questions a praise from complete strangers everywhere we stop. Roughly 99% of them were in the process of saving to buy one, talking to a Toyota dealership for a Prius (which currently has a 6 month waiting list from the factory), or are planning on owning one in the next 1-2 years.

Also, not everyone in the world is selfish. There are people who believe in doing what is right, not just what benefits only them.

Re:Even compared to other new non hybrids.....

[mrchaotica]

My wife's Honda Insight has a lifetime fuel economy of 61 MPG for over 120,000 miles. What economy sedan gets that fuel economy? None. My wife also reduced her fuel costs per month from $240 to $80. But, the main reason she bought it is because she cares about the environment. The Honda Insight is also an SULEV. The fuel cost savings were a great benefit. If it was safe to do so, both her and I would ride our bikes to work, but we cannot. If it was all about the money, she would have considered buying a VW TDI with similar fuel economy. There are absolute and definable benefits to owning and driving a Hybrid.

I think Insights are really cool too, but mostly because of their shape and light weight. I wish they would make a non-hybrid version (a modern CRX!). That said, I've got some thoughts for you:

1. I realize that you didn't get the Insight solely for milage or to save money, but you should still realize that even considering the fuel savings a 30MPG, $10K (or less) Hyundai Accent is cheaper over that 120K miles.
2. The TDI may have poor emissions (mostly particulates and NOx), but if you ran it on biodiesel it would have ZERO net CO2 emissions (i.e. it wouldn't contribute to global warming).
3. You're considering the efficiency and emissions during the life of the car, but have you considered those things before and after the life of the car? Those batteries take a lot of materials, energy, and pollution to make (probably enough to offset the fuel savings already), and you still need to worry about disposing of them!

Re:Even compared to other new non hybrids.....

[anthony_dipierro]

The free market won't do it, but those are real costs that a "rational" person would pay (unless it is voluntary, thus allowing freeloaders).

The free market would work perfectly fine for garbage disposal costs. The problem is we don't have a free market, we have a government run system which charges people based on things fairly unrelated to their costs.

But you're right, most people are too short-sighted to do it unless you give them an economic incentive.

Well, most people are too short-signed to do it even if you do give them an economic incentive. Most people aren't going to recycle just because they save $1/month in garbage hauling fees. So their time must not be worth the savings.

Anyway, going back to the hybrid vs. all-gas car question, I don't think there's a clear winner with regard to which is better for the environment and society. Sure, you don't directly pollute quite as much, and you don't create quite as much CO2. But people had to spend quite a bit more time and energy to create the product, and the environmental impact of the disposal is a bit more. Even if we assume that environmental pollution is everything - and it isn't (we could have a much cleaner environment if got rid of all cars, went back to farming, etc.) - I don't think there's even a clear-cut winner for that. Battery production and disposal has a big impact on the environment, as well as all the other production and disposal of the extra features of the car. In the end which is more important environmentally probably comes down to how much you drive the car. But if you're a big environmentalist you probably don't drive that much anyway.

Besides all that, environmental impact is not the only factor in impact on society. When you add in the intangibles like more free time the auto workers had to spend with their family instead of building you a hybrid, I think the true cost is fairly well represented by the sticker cost. This is especially true because gasoline is already taxed. That's another factor there, too. By using more gas you're contributing more to society monetarily.

If you really want to spend $6000 bettering the environment, I've gotta believe there are a lot better ways to do it than buying a hybrid car. Buy and plant 100 trees. Or donate the money to an environmental group. The possibilities are endless.

Re:So like...

[nmb3000]

SUVs are still selling since many people have the idea that size=safety

I'm tired of hearing this. While that might be part of it, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to own an SUV.

My family has 7 people in it. To travel semi-comfortably on vacation, we pretty much have to use a Suburban. A minivan, while it does have room for 7, doesn't have room for luggage. We're not anywhere near alone in this.

My family also enjoys camping and using a shared family boat. Both of these require a vehicle that can tow a lot of weight. There's not many options for a even a family of 5 to travel and tow something this size besides a large SUV. We're not anywhere near alone in this.

It's not something we really like. After all, ~15 MPG with a 45 gallon gas tank and $2.50 per gallon add up to some pretty big numbers for a trip. Because of this we also have a smaller vehicle for everyday use. This isn't to say that SUVs are always used for a good reason. I'm sure there's plenty of people who just like the big cars, same as they like big houses. But SUVs also have many valid purposes.

MPG doesn't matter if you don't drive.

[ipoverscsi]

Implicit in many other posts is that it takes energy to move a car; if you're not getting it from gas you're simply getting it from somewhere else. If you really want to cut down on your energy consumption, drive less. Probably the largest energy savings you can get would be to live closer to where you work.

But perhaps the best solution is getting your local government to support mixed use zoning. New Urbanism is a great start, but not if these end up as islands in a sea of suburbia -- you'd just end up driving to get to them, sort of like a Universal Studio's City Walk. Relaxation of zoning and land-use laws in suburban areas would help even more. The ability to open a cafe on the corner of your subdivision -- or even in your own house -- would be a great way to create more local services that obviate the need for driving.

Re:So like...

[AndyChrist]

I hate that minivans get a free pass. Most of the time their MPGs are as bad as SUVs

    2005 Dodge Caravan SWB SXT
        3.3L V6 180HP 19/26 mpg

    2005 Dodge Durango SLT 4X2
        3.7L V6 210HP 16/21 mpg

For example.

I dunno, for the closest comparable engines, that looks mighty similar.

For an SUV with similar fuel economy to a minivan, you're not going to get 7 seats. You're also probably not going to get as much usable cargo room (you might not even in the 7 passenger SUV), you're probably going to pay more, and you probably won't get crashworthiness as good.

Minivans get a free pass because they do everything that most SUV buyers are buying their SUVs for, or CLAIMING they're buying them for, they do some of them BETTER, they often do it CHEAPER, and with better fuel economy.

Re:Of course, that's cheating ...

[Firethorn]

How about doing what I do when I need to (very) occasionally move large amounts of stuff:

Rent a more suitable vehicle.

Seriously. If it gets to the point that an all electric vehicle will save you a couple thousand* a year, and will cover 98% of your driving needs, it's probably worth it. 98% translates out to you needing a different vehicle 7 days of the year.

Rental car companies don't like making their rates public, but Alamo currently offers a compact car for $164 for a week, Minivan $239, SUV $249. Sure, there's some hassle with getting a rental, but many deliver, and if it became common, I'm sure they'd offer 'swap services' where they keep your car in their lot(and even charge it!) for the duration of your rental of one of their gasoline vehicles for your trip.

If you know that you're going to need two vehicles, I'd seriously consider how often you'll need the 'larger vehicle' before you pay that multi-thousand dollar increase. Don't forget that you'll be paying more in insurance and fuel.

*numbers in current dollars. Inflation may skew results in the future.

Re:We care about the children too

[DigiShaman]

It doesn't just piss you off, it really really pisses me off...and I live in Texas.

I wish I could just purchase a car without all of that extra safety shit and roll the dice on whether or not I survive. In return, I get a car with a huge discount. But noooooooo, the Big Government wont give me that option. So I must pay the "safety tax"

Re:So like...

[EnglishTim]

The difference between the UK and the US on this is that although there may be times that it would be useful to have a big vehicle for hauling things around, it would be a complete and utter pain in the arse the rest of the time.

The UK has a population density of 250 people per square kilometre compared to 32 in the US, and most of our city centres are many hundereds of years old, which basically means that our streets are quite a bit thinner than yours and there's more cars on 'em. Many people in cities (including
myself) don't have off-street parking so it's a case of trying to find a space on the street fairly close to your house.

That coupled with a road tax related to engine size and petrol (sorry, gas) costing close to $6/gallon means that people just don't buy the behemoths that you see on US roads. The closest it tends to get are large 4x4s like these ones that would be dwarfed by your American SUVs.

I've got a Toyota Corolla Verso, which has up to seven seats to fit my family of six, and yet is only 14 feet long and has a 1.8 litre engine. If need to haul stuff, I can put all the seats down which creates quite a large space in the back. If I need to haul something really big, I'll just hire a van. Sure, it'd be nice not to have to do that, but have something big for everyday driving? In London? Forget about it!

Re:So like...

[birge]

So, would you like to explain to me why moving seven people requires a vehicle with it's fucking bumper at the same height as my head when I'm in my car? When I was a kid, we got seven people in a station wagon. I'm sure you could put seven in a more reasonable SUV than the tank you've got now. Don't use the fact that you can't figure out contraception as a sorry excuse to endanger the families of other people (who don't have as many children to spare as you).

You pretty much HAVE to have a suberban? Jesus christ, what a load of self-serving bullshit. Unless the seven people you're hauling around are Marines and you're in a combat zone, you don't need a fucking Suburban. If your kids can't deal with anything else, you're raising a bunch of pansy-assed prima donnas with an over-active sense of entitlement.

Re:So like...

[dal20402]

SUVs don't need to be justified.

I'd appreciate it if you would justify to me why you're wearing out the roads faster, the ones I pay for with my tax dollars. Until there are higher registration fees for heavier vehicles, SUV drivers are getting subsidized by the rest of us.

And that doesn't even touch the global warming issue.

SUV affect and occupy public space

[birge]

SUV's occupy a public space. Surely you can't be such a complete, selfish ass as to consider the public roads and our atmosphere to be "your business."

Re:So like...

[Ihlosi]

I don't care if it bothers other people. They have no right to be in my busines, and neither does the government which you probably wish would regulate SUVs. Let me drive what I want and I wil let you drive what you want. I'm not complaining, why are you?

Because you are polluting the air that I breathe, because it's people with your attitude who are impacting the climate I have to live in, and so forth. Your right to do as you please ends, for one thing, where you start hurting others.

Reminds me of the old Texas saying (I realize Bush doesn't adhere to this so piss off): Leave me the hell alone and I'll leave you the hell alone.

Good. Great. I'm all for it. Now could you please move to another planet (or show me one I can relocate to, preferably one that has all the amenities of our little blue ball of dirt, like breathabe atmosphere, ecosystem, close to 1g of gravity, magnetic field to help keep the solar wind out, preferable somewhere close by that the move doesn't take half a millenium).

What, you can't ? Geee.

Re:So like...

[Bertie]

Sitting here in Europe as I am, cars like the Ford Crown Victoria baffle me. I've been in the back of one a few times since they're often used as taxis, and my impression was "hang on, this car's three-quarters of a mile long and I've got no legroom". It's like the Tardis in reverse. And the luggage capacity wasn't all that great either, due to some spectacularly bad design of the trunk/boot/whatever, with all sorts of things encroaching on the space. I don't really understand why anyone would buy one of these giant, unwieldy slugs when something as small as a Honda Civic is spacious enough that my sister, who's 5'6", was able to get up and walk into the passenger seat from the back row.

And of course, size=safety is a total fallacy. Size=weight=bigger bang when you hit something. And in a car like the Crown Victoria, which seems to have been completely unaffected by the last 30 years or so of progress in car design, I wouldn't be too confident that it'll crumple in a passenger-friendly way if I stuck it in a wall. Most fairly small cars are incredibly safe these days - check out the Euro-NCAP tests to see how our silly little European econoboxes cope with being flung at walls and stuff, and all whilst getting hybrid-style fuel ecnonomy out of their diesel engines.

Not having a go at you personally, you understand, I just don't see the point of these cramped, inefficient, slow, thirsty behemoths in this day and age.

Re:So like...

[Dread_ed]

,i>"Because you are polluting the air that I breathe, because it's people with your attitude who are impacting the climate I have to live in, and so forth"

Until you get completely off the electricty grid, never go anywhere in a car, and stop using consumer goods of any kind, take your smart assed high and might eco bullshit and stuff it. You, my arrogant and self righteous friend, are just as guilty as the rest of us.

YOU are polluting as well. Not as much maybe, but then again maybe you do in ways that are not as visible as an SUV.

If you have a car you are polluting as well. If you use electricity (obvious that your computer does at least) you are polluting the air and screwing the climate. If you use mass transit you are consuming resources that lead to pollution. If you buy food from a grocery store the packaging and transportation of that food causes pollution too. If you have anything made out of plastic, paper, or metal that you did not craft by your own hand in the back yard, then you are contributing to pollution and climate change.

Screaming down someone who wants to drive a SUV while you and the rest of the world continue to pollute is just plain moronic. You are creating a scapegoat to attack that makes you feel better about yourself, but that has little impact on anything else, least of all pollution.

Get used to it folks. If you like this consumer based society we have built with the cars and computers and electric lights and rapid transit and grocery stores and pharmacies all the rest of the shit we are all used to then you are going to be a polluting, environment destroying climate changer, just like the SUV driver.

Since I don't see people falling off of the electric grid in droves and shunning this modern lifestyle you had better buy some shorts and a few Hawiian shirts. It's gonna get alot hotter around here.