Slashdot Mirror
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."
"University of California, Davis engineering professor Andy Frank built a plug-in hybrid from the ground up in 1972 and has since built seven others, one of which gets up to 250 mpg. They were converted from non-hybrids, including a Ford Taurus and Chevrolet Suburban."
By this reasoning, I could build a car that has a little 1 horse power engine and a big bank of batteries which are charged by plugging it in at night. I could claim 1000 mpg, but that doesn't actually mean that my car is more efficient than any other car.
I agree that this may be useful, sort of more of a middle-ground between hybrids and electric cars, but really they should stop making mpg claims.
I've built electric cars. (college solar car team).
... but he gets power from the wall, which had to come from somewhere.
This car does not get 80 mpg. It uses 1 gallon of gas for every 80 miles it travels
Although large power plants may be able to make electricity more efficiently, he has to deal with transmission losses, and then storage losses from the inefficiency of battery storage. And he has the extra weight of 18 more batteries.
The only advantage wall-plugs do on electric vehicles is move where they're poluting -- it moves to the power plant, instead of the point of use.
Billing any of these cars as '250mpg' unless gallons of gasoline is the only input to the system is a disservice to everyone.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
here is the funny part. I have an econo box from 1986 that kills the Prius and Honda hybrid gas mileage.
Geo metro 50Mpg average, when I drive all highway I get 58mpg
why does a "hybrid" get much less gas mileage than my old technology simple internal combustion engine with a CARBERATOR? something is very wrong with these hybrids.
80 mpg for the first 20 miles is great for the stay at home mom that drive to the store or around a little bit. the majority of the american public lives more than that from work. Granted in cities where during rush hour you spend a majority of that time at under 10mph or stopped and these hybrids make great use of that time. but having to buy a $25,000.00 hybrid plud add 80 hours of my time tinkering and voiding the warrenty so I can add another $3000.00 worth of parts to it to finally get a MPG rating that a hybrid should have already had really bothers me.
How about the fricking SMART CAR already availabe in canada and get's 60Mpg on it's own?
Hybrids are crap, utter crap until they get on their worst day 50mpg. Let's force the US to allow the importing of the smartcar.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
You can make a hummer get better than 80 mpg. Not too far from my house is a hummer that gets better than 80 mpg, but it's also a hybrid.
It's a combination diesel-continental drift vehicle, and they fire it up maybe once in 10000 years.
Of course, if they power it up and use the vehicle to drive down the street, it's back down to 6 mpg.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
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.
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.
And as the average American wants a big SUV and certainly isn't going to accept downgrading to something the size of a Prius and losing all of their trunk space to 18 brick sized batteries, it looks like the politicians and auto makers are correct.
In 1904 or whenever it was, two guys managed to invent a plane that, yes, technically could fly. A full hundred years later, why don't we all have our own planes or flying cars? Because, for the average person, they're totally impractical - they simply cost too much and have too many trade-offs for the benefits gained.
A Prius stacked full of batteries with no trunk space is exactly the same: Sure, you can do it. But that doesn't mean everyone in America is going to rush out and get one.
The theory is that it'll take years or decades to reach the point where it is practical for the masses. And that theory remains true.
Translation: I am insecure and need to compensate with my penis car.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
"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.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
30mpg in town, and 41 on the interstate.
An RV posted for sale on the bulletin board at work gets 2.5 miles per gallon. Also posted are lots of SUV's that get 10-12mpg in town and 18-20mpg on the interstate. That's why folks are dumping those gas hogs.
BUT, as the price of gasoline crosses $3.50 to 4.00/gal even my car will be too expensive to drive. I believe $3/gal will arrive before Christmas, and $4/gal by the next Christmas, if not sooner. Luckily, work is only 3.7 miles away and I have a nice bike.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
"Translation: I am insecure and need to compensate with my penis car."
Translation: I'm envious of your ownership of the penis car.
"Derp de derp."
Ask for a refund on your high school education, as they failed to deliver.
737 kg/m3 divided by 264.17 is the number of kilograms per gallon of gasoline. Multiplying the 2.79kg that a gallon of gasoline weighs by the net energy content of 44 MJ/kg gives you 122 MJ per gallon of gasoline, or the equivalent of 34 kWh of electricity.
I pay about USD 20 cents per kWh of electricity with tax, so the electrical equivalent for a gallon of gasoline would be about USD 6.80. Or, I can buy gasoline at about USD 2.15.
The more interesting question is: For each of those joules combusted in the engine, how many of them make it to the rubber/road interface (according to one FAQ about 0.2) and for each of the joules my ersatz-electric car pulls out of the wall socket, how many of THEM make it into the rubber/road interface (according to another FAQ about 0.6). Of course regen braking lets me use some of those joules over and over again, how much of which is highly dependent on driving conditions.
So, it turns out that the utility-electric-sourced car is about $11.30 per mega-newton-meter/second at the road surface, while the gasoline car is at about $10.75 - although it would not take very much regeneration at ALL to push that to the other side of the equation.
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
So, have you ever driven a Prius? I have, for the past four years. I don't have trouble with city traffic, or with highway traffic. It is the easiest driving car that I have ever owned.
Last Monday I put on 280 miles at 70 mph, and got 49.5 mpg. Sure, I got passed by a few Suburbans, but I passed a bunch, too. Our Prius is quite sensitive to who is driving it; I get significantly better milage than my wife. Also, in winter the milage drops substantially (colder battery? alcohol in the gas?).
It's true that the cost of the hybrid is such that it is hard to make a strong argument for buying a hybrid on strict economic grounds. However the estupidass US automakers have been so distracted with making ever larger SUVs that I simply couldn't bear to give them a dime when we needed a new car several years ago.
Look: my Prius is not a sports car, obviously. I'm not going to haul a horse trailer over Snoqualmie Pass with it. But it is really ignorant to describe these hybrids as lemons. They are extremely good at what they are designed to be good at, and that turns out to be just about 95 percent of all my family's driving needs. My Prius is comfortable, thrifty, fun to drive, and interesting to drive.
The single largest problem with the Prius is that it is so quiet that pedestrians and bicyclists don't hear it.
Not to nitpick, but the only way that a Geo's going to get up to 60 mph is if it's going downhill and you've got a sail the size of a Winnebago attached to the roof. And that's on a good day.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
That said, I would never buy a Prius myself. There are better cars for the price (and similar cars for much less), and there are many better ways to help the environment then by purchasing a new car.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
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.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
...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?
Third time in this article I've seen someone make this mistake. It's an epidemic.
The gasoline powered car is only 25% efficient so although you pay $2.15/gallon you only use a quarter of the energy. Electric motors are very efficient so you don't need 1:1 energy equivalent with gasoline. The "electrical equivalent for a gallon of gasoline" is actually closer to $1.50, using your figures.
Not to mention that the Metro is manual transmission (automatic sucks efficiency, and will until continuously variable transmission becomes standard), and only was rated as 45 MPG highway (which was lowered to 35 MPG). The earlier engines were 55 hp, while the latter was 70. Both engines were famous for getting worse efficiency as they aged due to vibration because of the light construction.
For comparison, my lawnmower has six horsepower.
better ways to help the environment than by purchasing a new car
Excellent point. Many environmentalists fail to factor in production into their calculations. Steel is made by burning coke in with your iron ore. Aluminium is an incredibly energy-consuming electrolysis process. Plastics, well, they're non-biodegradable and made from petroleum. Copper is a particularly polluting metal to mine. And lets not even get into things like batteries.
If *I* needed a new car, I'd probably choose a hybrid. However, to run out and get something new because it's more efficient often ignores the big picture. Complex physical devices often have polluting activity involved in production at least somewhat related to cost.
Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
A motorcycle on the other hand is quite different. When you lay a motorcycle on it's side, there's a hundred pounds of human flesh and blood acting as a wear plate, before you scratch the paint on the motorcycle. The human rider is directly exposed to the energy of the impact, a very efficient transfer of energy.
As an extra side bonus, when humans act as wear plates to protect the motorcycle, they are also helping with the culling process, improving the gene pool. I always get a big grin on my face when I see a big dumb biker riding down the road, jeans and a t-shirt, no helmet. Nature will always prevail, the culling process is natural in that scenario. The only real problem these days is the sneaking up of license ages. If they keep letting it sneak up higher, pretty soon, the culling process wont be able to take effect until AFTER those folks have propogated the genes that contain utter stupidity. But I have faith in nature, it'll find another vector around this problem....
The question I have is why nobody has come up with a diesel hybrid. You have all these arguments that hybrids are no better than old-style diesels, which is true. The diesel engine is just a whole lot more efficient.
So, why not just make a diesel hybrid? Best of both worlds, and if you only need to tank up every 800 miles don't tell me you can't find find a gas station that sells it...
I'm an American living in Ireland and a proud owner of a Smart Fortwo convertible. While it's true that the scourge of the SUV fad hasnt hit here yet, mainly due to how they tax and insure vehicles here (by engine displacement), there's still no shortage of large vehicles with which I share the road. Yet I feel quite safe inside of it, it has better safety features as standard than most irish cars on the road.
And the gas mileage is sweeeeet. I drive it on my commute every day and I only need to fill up every 2.5 weeks, yes, weeks. And even though gas costs about $4.00 a gallon here (you Americans think you have it bad, hahahaha...) I still spend less on gas per month on that car than I do when I visit the USA with other cars. I was in New York City and Boston in the past few weeks and was disgusted by how many Hummer H2's were driving around. A Smart is the PERFECT city vehicle, and it's just ignorance to dismiss it because of it's sensible size.
Yup...
I imagine that your fuel efficiency is comparatively pretty good, because even though you're getting ~15mpg, you're moving 7 people (versus 2 cars with more mpg, but more stops if they have smaller gas tanks and more confusion, and also more traffic).
However, the problem isn't your family going on trips in an SUV. Most (relatively rational) people would agree that in your case, for that situation, it makes sense. What about when you aren't on trips, who uses it? Does someone use it to drive to the market every day, run errands, etc? That's where it starts to bother people.
Sig!
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"
Life is not for the lazy.
The Geo's 0-60mph acceleration time is measured with a desk calendar.
There should be one coming to the US market this year:
http://www.hybridcars.com/ram.html
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.
Those hummers should not even be street legal. Look at where the bumper level will hit a normal car. I would rather get hit by a semi then a hummer. The semi is more likely to push you since the bumper is designed to hit as low as possible while the hummer is going to just run over you.
I also don't know why but some of the most dangerous driving I have seen was done in the largest suvs. Things like the hummer and those suburban things. I watched someone yesterday on the freeway change lanes right into one a smaller car was already occupying. The person swerved very quickly and avoided the accident but there is no reason it should have happened. The car would not have been in their blind spot it just seemed like they did not see it. My guess is that people in those larger vehicles are only looking at vehicles that they see as a threat, ie the same size or larger and so they are a far more serious threat to other vehicles on the road.
I know there are some legitimate reasons to have them. The mountain rescue service around here has hummers that they use for rescues but they should not be used for regular driving around.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
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.
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.