Slashdot Mirror
When Hybrids Do (And Don't) Make Sense
prostoalex writes "Recently NPR, CNN Money and Wall Street Journal Online have all dedicated some time and space to discussing hybrid vehicle pros and cons. It seems that hybrids do not make much financial sense if (a) you're buying after getting yourself into a debt with not really good interest on a car loan, (b) your battery requires replacement after being out of warranty, (c) your daily commute is not too long, so the price markup you pay for a hybrid does not translate into long-term gas savings." From the CNN article: "They may make a social statement you're interested in, but if you want to save money because of rising gas prices, you're heading down the wrong road, at least for now."
The main advantages of owning a hybrid now are that early adopters will drive the market to create a demand for innovation in the marketplace. The NPR discussion did point this out, but failed to hilight (at least some of) the reasons I have noted above, though I must admit I was too busy pay attention to the road on my *really long* commute to be sure that I didn't miss some of the speakers' points.
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
Maybe for some people, buying a car that pollutes less is about trying to harm our environment less so that we don't end up like LA rather than saving money or "making a statement".
I'd rather be lucky than good.
Imagine a hairy tatooed biker riding a hybrid motorcycle of some sort.
Not pretty, huh?
What would be the right 'road' to go down? (assuming that because of job or where you live cutting out driving altogether is unrealistic).
...but if you want to save money because of rising gas prices... ..if you can't even fart for free?
[Slashdot Comments We Liked]
Several people have been charging their hybrid's batteries overnight from the AC mains, and for a situation where the commuting distance is short, this makes plenty of sense. You may never even have to start the engine, which will still of course be available for longer trips.
Much cheaper, better mileage and more powerful than a hybrid
Your mileage may vary.
Google some basic concepts of capital budgeting like Internal Rate of Return or Net Present Value and figure out if a hybrid is the right financial decision for you. For me it was not.
Buy a diesel. And if it's hard or impossible in your region, petition your idiot politicians to loosen up the emissions regulations (diesel emissions, even on older diesels, are generally speaking a lot better than gas emissions, yet diesel's more highly regulated).
Better efficiency (often) than hybrids overall, it's good on highways too, and it's far more cost-effective, too.
Fuck it
You get 33 MPG city and 36 HWY.
not bad for a non hybrid.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
http://www.kfor.com/Global/story.asp?s=3390503
/. but didn't get around to it.
Was reading about how this guy gets 120MPG. Was going to submit it to
Is the cost of a hybrid versus other ideas worth it? Anyone look into this freezing method?
...the oil company marketing team whispering in the reporters' ears.
A small diesel engine does very well from a fuel economy standpoint. Unfortunately small diesel cars tend to be either very expensive or not very reliable when compared to their gas counterparts.
Very true -- I have an electric Ape Piaggio and only use the gas engine when going uphill while loaded. Why the "official" manufacturers don't allow for charging from AC mains is beyond my comprehension.
(electric conversion done by little old me using forklift batteries, 24v)
bicycle or city bus.
Get one of the TDI models from VW. Over 1000 km a tank and the diesel is cheaper than gasoline. Their torque keeps them reasonably quick on the highway, and they are comfortable. Also the new engines help with the noise and smell issues associated with diesel power.
Unfortunately the hybrids really do seem over rated, though rumour has it vw is developing a diesel hybrid.
Because not wanting to fuck over others is a "social statement." Because not wanting to die from smog is a "social statement." Because using only your fair share is a "social statement."
a Kung Fu Monkey blog entry from a month ago said this:
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
If you wait until Jan. 1st of next year (in the US), the federal government will give you a fat tax credit with the purchase of a hybrid vehicle. This changes the financial equation considerably. My understanding is the tax credit won't cover the full incremental cost of moving up to a hybrid, but is usually more than half of it.
Even at that, I expect only about a savings of $500 per year. However, one ecconomic benefit I do see is the resale value - these models don't lose much, at least as compared to standard gas only cars.
Would I buy one again - YES - for my wife and I it fits our needs well and I do get more questions about this car than any other I have ever had. Is that worth the premium I paid, probably not. Taken as a whole, I am happy (and this is from someone who views a car as a means from getting from point A to B safely).
Someone who owns a house an hour's drive away from where they work (such as people who work in Phoenix and live in the outlying suburbs) can't realistically either give up driving, give up their homes or take transit (in many outlying cities there is no transit. And this situation is more common than you might think.
The combination of high feul prices and people buying newly built homes far from where they work is a pretty common mix here in Arizona; and I don't think Az is alone in it. I think it will be interesting to see how this effects the housing boom.
I bought my hybrid five years ago when they first came out. I was on the waiting list for the first of the Honda Insights. At the time gas was just over $1 per gallon. With the sticker shock over what I would pay for a simlar non-hybrid and with $5000 battery replacement, I calculated that gas would need to average about $5 a gallon while I owned the car for it to make sense. I bought the hybrid because:
Overall the car has worked out well. Especially in the first couple years, I would have strangers approach me in parking lots and ask questions. More people would be interested in my car than even some of my friends with fancy sports cars. The story of how I named my car "The FJM" is a funny story.
The insight has some of its own unique problems because it is a two seater: It makes it hard to take friends anywhere, and now that I'm expecting a daughter I can't put a car seat in it. Because it is so different, I have to take it to the dealership for almost all of the maintenence including oil changes. I'm also getting to the point where I will have to get the batteries replaced soon and I'm not looking forward to it.
Bottom line is that you should only get a hybrid if you think they are cool. They probably won't save you money. (But here is hoping that the gas price doubles soon :-)
Consider getting into a FryBrid.
All you have to do is buy a used diesel car, install a $700 conversion kit, and then build a relationship with a local restaurant. Instead of them having to pay to haul off their fry grease, you offer to take it off their hands for free. You strain it and then load it into your frybrid vehicle.
The future is here :
http://www.frybrid.com/
Take a look at LCD and Plasma Displays, speaking about its financial issues. LCD and Plasma uses less energy, so they are more "green" to the environment, also, they produce less heat, again, less energy is needed to cool down a room/place fill with monitors (Take an office for example). LCD arent cheaper even now. But they are a mainstream technology, and they dont are a niche market. Hybrids car are good, and they will become cheaper. Sooner or later.
Â_Â
This is a great way to cut your fuel costs, assuming you use the AC mains on your neighbor's property.
Where I live it gets a bit nippy in the winter. Hell, it gets a bit nippy in the summer. There's nothing like a good ol' fashion 28%-efficient infernal combustion engine to keep the warm air blasting through the vents. I wonder how well a hybrid vehicle would do?
And if you think that's a minor point, you don't understand what a real winter is.
Inreasing demands on AC mains power will increase demand and likely price as well as requiring greater emissions from our mostly gas/coal (at least in the US) derived electrical power. Not to mention you get the added bonus of transmission losses during distribution which just doesn't exist for the gasoline (at least not more so than coal or natural gas is subject to).
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
He patiently explains that it is diesel, it is for a hospital generator, and that only diesel is available - there is no gasoline. Cars start to disperse, but as soon as they do, the lines reform with other drivers and the cycle repeats.
Meanwhile a guy in a new VW Beetle pulls up opposite the pickup truck and fills up with diesel - no wait, no muss, no fuss. Turns out he paid a little extra for the VW diesel engine and has never had to wait in line - even after a hurricane!
The affect of plant/tree removal must be considered when considering our impact on the world.
Perhaps the worse thing that could happen is the invention of fuel that is basically FREE, and perhaps even a zero emission fuel. Because such an event would cause the parking lots and roads to expand at an even faster rate, causing more destruction of more plants and tree, and thus causing arguably more enviromental damage than a expensive ( and perhaps dirty ) fuel.
More expensive fuel would be good for the environment if it would cause less vehicles to be on the road, perhaps utilizing mass transit, and cause people to live closer to where they work and play. An inexpensive fuel causes the reverse to happen.
Really though, there is much more that goes into car selection than gas millage and social comment. Those may be large factors, but you can't deny that there are other features that would draw one to buy a hybrid. The Prius had a high tech feel that appealed to me, got millage I wanted, and was all around coolest in my opinion, so I got one. I suspect most buyers also buy based on appeal rather than strict millage or cost effectivness equations.
If forums teach us anything, it is that logic and critical thinking should be required courses in the public schools.
Yeah, that makes sense if your AC comes from clean energy sources. If the electric company burns coal to push electricity to your house to charge your "clean" vehicle your polluting more than running a standard small gasoline engine. AFAIK it's always more efficient to produce the electricty closer to where you consume it. PS. I own a 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid that I've put on 33,000 miles on. It's a great car.
The mother of a friend of mine recently purchased a hybrid SUV. When it switches from gas to battery, it jerks the whole vehicle, which they find incredibly annoying.
Hybrids are still in the early adopter phase, I think, and while they'll get better with time, I wouldn't by one just yet, especially if you live in the mountains.
City buses cause more pollution per rider than almost any vehicle.
After you factor average riders per bus day, mileage per rider, and the cost of maintenance, the average short bus trip is over $10 (in Chicago) per rider. Some say $18 per trip. Just divide the yearly operating budget by yearly riders and you see a frightening figure.
Sure, one rider may not utilize a lot of gas, but the bureaucracy supporting our CTA is enormous. And all those city employees? Many drive cars.
As you point out, the efficiency advantage of hybrid automobiles diminishes relative to gasoline engines at highway speeds. Many will point out that the efficiency advantage of diesel engines increases relative to gas under these conditions. Right now, hybrids only make sense for the city-bound stop-and-go commuter, and for in-city delivery vehicles. Sadly, diesel's particulate emissions have recently been related to increased risks of asthma in children. All in all, hybrid products are a worthy work in progress...
Using plain ol' text since 1968
two wheels
bicycles get incredible gas mileage...zero gallons of gas will run it forever!
in all seriousness, my 22 year old motorcycle gets better gas mileage than just about any car out there. properly tuned it gets somewhere between 45 and 50 mpg. newer smaller engine bikes (the little 250cc ninjas and stuff) get even better. i've heard of bikes getting around 70mpg
-dk
Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
People don't like when other people have higher moral/ethical/work standards than they do.
So, if you choose the considerate option, you're some kind of moralizing freak or tree-hugging anti-american socialist.
The only thing they can accept is when the option you choose has the better appeal to the basest instincts, money, sex, power, etc.
so then you calculate the real cost. say the civic gets 30mpg, and the prius 60mpg (this is really giving the prius to much credit, but just for the sake of discussion). say you spend $40/week in gas on the civic, you'd then spend $20/week on the prius. you save $20/week on gas with the prius. but, you paid $12,000 more for the prius. divide 10,000 by 20, and you get 500, which is the number of weeks you'd need to drive the prius to break even. 500 weeks ~ 9.61 years. now factor in the possible battery replacement.
i understand that at least part of this conclusion is based on the fact that the prius is in high demand, and therefore overpriced right now.
I read the WSJ article and the author was comparing buying a new Prius with keeping his old car (can you say Apples to Oranges). When you compare buying a new car (say a 2006 Honda Civic) with a Prius the comparison comes out more favorable for the Prius.
I ran my own numbers and found the Prius to be about $4100 more expensive, but with the $2000 tax credit and driving about 10,000miles/year you would break even in about 7.5 years assuming $3/gallon gas. Of course a bicycle is about $16400 less than the Honda and gas isn't an issue.
The Prius has a nice 8 year/100,000 mile warranty on the power train (batteries included) so you'd be OK with the Prius instead of the Honda. But you'd be rich with the bike.
Like a Hybrid, it costs about 5 grand more than the gasoline version.
Since recently, one can refuel it at home http://www.myphill.com/ (but the compressor is expensive, 3 or 4 grand, and installation isn't cheap either, you need a plumber who is certified to install Phill, not just any plumber).
Biggest advantages of a CNG car:
+ In California, even after the quota of 75000 (yellow) HOV access stickers for Hybrids has been exhausted, CNG cars will still get a (white) HOV access sticker, no questions asked.
+ If you buy or lease Phill, you do not have to pull up at a public refuelling station ever again, each and every morning your car is ready to go 180 miles.
Biggest disadvantages of a CNG car:
- Limited range, I average around 170 to 180 miles (everything beyond that becomes a nail biter).
- There is a limited number of public refuelling stations. Don't plan to own a CNG car as your only car - I use it only as the "commute" car and drive a (blush) Ford Expedition as the weekend/family car.
Dedicated Linux servers (root access) $45 p.M.
Owning a Hybrid certainly made financial sense for me. I bought a Prius early on, and sold it recently. Between what I got for selling it and the tax breaks I got when I bought it, I paid $1000 to own it for four years, including all maintenance.
Of course, figuratively and litteraly, YMMV.
My first car was a 1993 Honda Civic CX (Hatchback). Driving it modestly netted me ~60mpg.
I paid $12,000 (Canadian).
Today to find a car that get that kind of mileage will cost me $25k-$30k.
WTF is going on? Are economy cars the "next-big-price-gouge"?
Why are not all Standard cars getting 40+mpg?
We have more platics in our cars then we did 12 years ago. We have smarter computers that manage fuel consumption better.
If my company didn't require a car for my job, I would cycle to work everyday.
To recline is devine.
I love my recumbent!
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Hybrids will definitely be much more popular as they become cheaper and little bigger to accomodate the bigger famillies. With the current hybrids now the savings on gas is appromimately equal to the preium paid on hybrid cars. So not much value savings is seen by consumers but as they get cheaper and bigger they will surely be a hot commodity and I'll be the first in line to get one.
What does your Credit Report look like?
AFAIK it's always more efficient to produce the electricty closer to where you consume it.
Efficient in terms of power, yes. But efficient in terms of pollution? No.
Which would you rather have: 100 million individual pollution sources, or 1000? Which do you think would be easier to maintain for pollution controls? Which do you think would be easier to improve to reduce emissions?
And of course, if you're only polluting from power plants, you can relocate the power plants to avoid smog.
There is no commute too short for a hybrid and the batteries are NiMH which means they last long past the warranty.
You can help the enviroment far more with the same money. For example, for around $75 a year, several companies will buy pollution credits on your behalf, negating the emissions by your regular vehicle. In most states, the same amount of money can also be used to have your electricity come from "green" sources. Therefore, if you had two cars and a home, you could negate ALL of your primary emissions for about $225/year, which is far less than the cost of owning a hybrid.
Hybrids, at this point in time, are nothing but a wasteful political statement. There is almost no circumstance where they are socially beneficial, nor beneficial to the owner in any other respect than his or her ability to feel righteous.
When I bought my Prius, the price difference between a Corolla and a Prius (cars that are comparable except for the powertrain) was about $6,000. In 100,000 miles the corolla will burn about 4,000 gallons of gas; the Prius will burn about 2,000 gallons. Hence purchasing the Prius makes sense from a fuel-only standpoint at about $3.00/gallon. That price point seemed unlikely to happen when I bought the car and fuel was about $1.80/gallon in Colorado. Now that fuel is close to $2.80/gallon (and I'm 30,000 miles into that 100,000 mile amortization) it's doesn't seem so unlikely.
But in the debate over pricing most people forget the all-important motivating difference between up-front and marginal pricing. When each mile costs a lot, you tend not to drive as much as when you pay for them all up front! This is the reason I buy a ski pass every year: although I may or may not get my "money's worth" from the pass over the whole year, I'm more likely to ski more times with the pass -- it's a no-brainer to head up the mountain. That convenience, for me, makes the pass worthwhile.
Similarly, having a very fuel-efficient car makes it more likely that I'll actually use and enjoy the convenience of my car. If it cost me $50 every 200 or 250 miles, I might think more about hopping in the car -- but at $30 every 400 miles, I don't really think about the price of fuel when i'm deciding whether to zip off somewhere to go hiking.
Not reliable?? Diesel engines are far more reliable than gasoline ones.
Although modern Diesel engines are getting more and more complex, the basic principle behind a Diesel engine is very simple compared to the principle of a gasoline engine. (no spark plugs)
Diesel engines are also build more robust because of the greater force a Diesel engine explosion has, contributing even more to reliability.
I suspect hybrid cars will never take off until the day that their TCO is lower than those of petrol or diesel. Environmental statements are all very well and good for the few, but impact requires the masses and the masses follow the money (that's not necessarily a bad thing; I do it too).
;o)
If petrol wasn't so ridiculously cheap, hybrid cars would make more sense financially. Financial sense leads to adoption. The tax $$$s might help the budget deficit too
Sure, you may not save money today by being an early adopter. However, you will be making a big statement to the industry that you want efficient transportation, and sensible use of a commidity that is the life blood of our economy.
Due your math for today, but think about tomorrow. Hybrids can only get better, but if no one buys them the manufacturers will not make them. After massive adoption, we may start seeing articles crying that the next technology is not cost effective. Compounded interest and technology have a lot in common.
The price difference depends on the vehicle.
The Ford Escape Hybrid is about par with the Excape XLT. The XLT's base price for FWD is 24,800 and the Hybrid is like 27,500, so the cost difference is only like 10%.
My blog
It is my perception that the people who think hybrids are "great for the environment" are misguided joiners who want to feel
:) ) and it gives them certain feelings
like they are contributing something to the environment while simultaneously standing outside the social mainstream. My theory is that they derive a sense of enjoyment
and self satisfaction from this.
The actual analysis as to whether hybrid vehicles are "better for the environment" is a very complex calculation
that involves boring and rare information (Where are the batteries supplied from? How are the
plastic parts made? What are the emissions from the steel plants? How are the materials for the magnets in the
electric motor mined and processed?) Of course a regular car has similar concerns. Many people look at the MPG
number on the sticker that came from the EPA tests (YMMV of course
about their environmental or geo-political points of view. These feelings might motivate them to buy the car
but the truth about these effects is very complex.
The economic justification for such a car is even more dubious. You would have to put a high price on externalities
in order to justify the higher price of the hybrid, even discounting the fuel costs.
All this adds up to a nexus of confusion, materialism, environmentalism, geo-politicking and contraianism.
Plus, the blinky lights show you when you are running on battery power!
On a good day, I get 50mpg on my 1987 Honda CRX HF. My car performs, and runs in top condition. It has 186k miles on it, out of which I've put 12k myself. I bought this car for $500 and the only money spent on it was on gas and oil changes. 4x25 = 100 bucks in oil change. 12,000/40 = $300.00 in gas (conservative guess). Thus, for about 500 + 400 = 900 dollars, I got 12k out of my car.
Roughly 13.33 miles per dollar so far. Can you beat that with an old ford or chevy? My 1993 Mercury cougar died at 180k, a 1995 saturn died at 155k and they both gave me pretty bad mpg (I'd say 20mpg on a bad day, 30mpg on an extremely smooth day). Do you think these companies will want you to buy hybrids? Or do you think they'll bring up reasons to steer you away from hybrids as long as possible?
I bet with new hybrids like insight or prius you can get better miles per dollar in the long run. A honda you bought for $19,000.00 lasting 300k will give around 15 miles per dollar if you spend nothing on gas, oil, or repairs!. This average is worse for those gas guzzling republican funding ford and chevvy automobile monsters.
Ok, the best hybrids on the market get what, like, 60MPG?
A late 80's Honda CRX got close to 50MPG.
Everybody is touting how Hybrids are somehow better than regular cars, when in fact, the gas mileage improvement is marginal (2x at most, wake me up when it's 50x). Hybrids are not new technology, trains have been using hybrid diesels for half a century now. They're more expensive. What's the point either than beating your chest as a pseudo-environmentalist.
If you really want to do your part, take a bike, walk, etc. Is it going to make a difference? Damn straight, you'll have a much healthier life. Is it going to make a global difference? No, don't even get your hopes up.
Our long term answer so far seems to be nuclear fission. So far the supply seems to be ample, and the electricity generation really safe. How do we turn that electricity into something you can put in a car? Probably fuel cells.
I seriously doubt hydrogen or battery will ever get to the level we want it at - to be able to output 100 KW sustained and 200KW peak and still be able to drive 300-400 miles non-stop is a tall order to fill for batteries or hydrogen.
don't forget that emmisions per mile are lower, but emmisions per gallon of gas are higher. the smaller engines may not run hot enough to burn away some of the nastier exhaust.
this isn't really a cure-all on pollution either.
personally, i think the battery technology/infrastructure has to be the bigger push.
...telling me a product isn't for me. People telling me why I shouldn't buy an iPod nano (you can't store all your music on it, a mini is better...) or a GBA Micro (It's too small, it doesn't play games you can't play on another console, it's too expensive...) and now hybrids. The fact is, there are billions of people in this world and they all live in different niches with different needs, economic constraints and tastes. For any of these products there are probably thousands or millions of people whose needs are satisfied by them. The same is true of /. comments. They are often of the form "this product is of no use" rather than "it doesn't satisfy my particular requirements".
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Since hybrids make use of regenerative breaking (capturing energy during breaking to recharge batteries) they tend to get very good milage in city driving when compared to other vehicles. However, on the Freeway where you're doing little stop&go (well, I suppose that depends on how bad traffic is where you are :) they don't make much sense.
Personally, I wish we could buy some of the smaller non-hybrid European or Asian cars here in the US. Many of these cars get 50+MPG without hybrid technology (no heavy, expensive batteries to carry around and replace). Cars in this category include the new Fiat Grande Punte and the SmartCar.
Also, you can 'simulate' a hybrid if you're willing to drive like an old geezer: Drive as if physics matters. Coast to red lights (why are people so much in a hurry to get to a red light?). Since starting and stopping are the main impacts on gas milage, you can learn to drive in such a way as to avoid stopping as much as possible. Sure, you're going to be driving much less aggressively, but it works. I'm getting 31MPG in city driving in an '87 Acura Integra which is rated at 26MPG in the city. Not only does it save on gas, it'll save on breaks as well.
Where are you getting those numbers from? Link, please?
Honda's hybrids all get better gas mileage on the highway than in the city:
I've been very happy with the Honda Insight that I bought in 2001.
It is a myth that switching to electricity would cause more pollution due to the nature of how the electricity is generated. Even taking into account that the energy comes from coal and the losses due to transmission, electric cars are still more fuel efficient (and thus cheaper and cleaner) than gasoline powered cars.
It seems to me that regenerative braking and very-low-speed operation are the only compelling arguments for hybrids.
Wide-range transmissions and precise engine controls already do a good job of maximizing joules/gallon throughout most of the performance envelope.
So what about fitting motor/generators to cargo trailers for use in hilly areas?
An interesting trend is that fuel economies tend to be set by the price of the fuel. In other words, car manufacturers only put the effort into improving efficiency when they need to, and that's when people won't take any more. US readers might not believe me on this one, but their fuel is cheap, at least when compared to European prices. And thus, lumbering goliaths (aka SUVs) are still a reasonable proposition. It astounds me when I look at the performance/economy figures for American cars. An example is the new Ford Mustang (a tasty looking car, BTW). The 4L model gets around 200bhp, and about 19/28mpg. My Fiat Coupe is comparible, but gets 260bhp from a 2L engine, and more than 50mpg outside town (I don't live in a city). Hybrids are only there to keep the PR good. Whats needed is a fundamental modernisation of US cars.
Give a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)
earth friendly, low emissions and brew your own from waste vegetable oil for less than a $1.
http://www.journeytoforever.org/
Busses in the Sacramento Metro area burn CNG. Basically a modified diesel design, low maintenance, ultra low emission fuel. Still, they could improve (I think) as it would take me 40-60 minutes to get to my job via bus, or 10-15 min by private vehicle. until the delta between the two gets smaller I'll drive my beater that gets just over 10mpg. Thanks.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
If it's the Ford Escape, something's wrong.
I live in Colorado, we have some "hills" here. My Escape goes up as smoothly as it heads downhill.
Yes, it uses a lot more gas to go up hill. I lose a whole mile per gallon on a BIG incline (3000' elevation change) And on the downhill side of a BIG incline, my engine shuts off and I drive for free, my mpg goes up to where it was and then blows right on by.
My mom says I'm cool.
The problems with Hybrid are many, here's just a few I can think of off the top of my head:
1. Hybrids are more expensive then their traditional counterparts.
2. Batteries are expensive to replace.
3. Batteries are not "good" for the environment.
4. People who "plug in" to pre-charge (such as some Prius owners) -- are still paying for that electricity.
5. The electricity used above still relies on a "non friendly" methods of production, which means your giving up gas here, but sacrificing coal (or nuclear, or insert method here) anyway.
Most of the downsides of Hybrids can also be applied to the downsides of any electric vehicle. The envo-friendly people dont understand that when you push for electric vehicles you are only "moving" the pollution from one source to the other. But, they dont care, as long as the pollution isnt around "them"... which creates the need for more electric plants, but they dont have any place to put the electric plants since no one wants a nuclear facility in their backyard... or coal burning, or, etc, etc.
As you can see, everyone wants all the benefits, but none of the downsides. What are we going to do with these millions of batteries when they need to be disposed?
Forum Foundry, Inc.
There are handfull of very sensible alternatives for practical greener vehicles with Bio-Fuels. Ethonol made from sugar cane as an alternative to petrol (gas). Bio-Diesel made from a range of vegatable oils.
A biggest advantage are that they are Carbon Neutral, so you can retain two often considered contradictory positions, being green and a petrol-head.
The price people pay for hybrids represents something of a guilt tax paid by the affluent. While they'll probably never recoup the price of the hybrid in gasoline savings, they will, in fact, be reducing their usage of the stuff, which is not a bad thing.
Prices will need to be no higher, preferably lower, than current car prices if hybrids or any other similar alternative technologies are to have a lasting environmental impact. Only the economically privileged can afford to spend more to use less energy.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
This is a very common misconception. Diesel fuel is denser than gasoline. When you correct for mileage per fuel mass or (even better) per carbon output, much of their advantage on paper fades.
Diesel engines are still slightly more efficient than typical gasoline engines, owing to the higher compression ratios used by the Diesel ignition process. The higher combustion temperatures, however, produce nitrogen oxides, which are a local pollutant. And of course a poorly tuned Diesel (or, often, just a cold one) generates a ton of particulate ("soot") emissions -- another local pollutant.
And remember that Diesels idle very inefficiently (they have bigger and heavier pistons, and a finicky ignition mechanism that can't be run as lean as gasoline), whereas a hybird will shut down the engine and idle with no emissions whatsoever (well, minus battery drain due to the air conditioner, etc...).
The best general advice that I've read is that a Diesel makes the best environmental choice for a long-haul vehicle that rarely idles, or for rural areas with little sensitivity to local pollution. They make rather poorer choices in the urban commute environment.
Disclaimer: I love my Prius, and it just smells better than the Diesels cars I've known.
Work to eat,
Eat to live,
Live to bike,
Bike to work.
I've always liked that shirt, but seriously, something to consider is riding a bike. Again, not always realistic, but more often than you think. A 10 mile ride is not unreasonable on a good bike, and a really good bike is less than a cheap car ($500 will get you a nice bike, $3000 will get you an excellent one). Even 20-30 miles isn't out of the question, I know a guy over 50 that does it every day. The added bonus is it's exercise so though your commute takes longer, you are combining two activities. Do two good bike rides per day, you probably don't need to do any more than that to maintain a healthy level of exercise.
It, of course, uses no gas and produces no emmissions that you do not naturally. It's also very efficient on an absolute enegry scale, a human on a bike is one of the most efficient forms of transport (in calories of energy required per mile) that we know of.
I actually started because I was too cheap to buy a parking pass (I work for a university and they are expesnive) but the bonuses are real nice. I am not feeling the pinch from gas prices since I fill up once every 1-2 months, I am in better shape for it, and I find it relaxing.
I realise this isn't a be-all, end-all solution and there are many people for whom this isn't feasable, but I'm betting that many of those in that are in the category of not saving on hybrids would be able to bike to work.
Hybrids are great at dealing with stop-and-go traffic. If you're driving a lot in such conditions (Taxi, delivery service, commute, etc.) then hybrid technology can do great things to reduce the inherent inefficiency of an internal combustion engine when it tries to get a stationary object going (No Torque at 0 RPM, etc.). And, regenerative braking does a lot to recapture some kinetic energy during braking and storing it for later use.
Whether the high price point currently can be justified really depends on a number of factors. For one, I wouldn't trust the EPA MPG numbers one bit - I'm not a highway hooligan, yet my milage doesn't come close to the published numbers. In an ideal world, you'd rent/borrow your hybrid of choice, commute/use the thing for a week, then tally the fuel savings. At least then you'd have a fighting chance to calculate the NPV of going with a hybrid vs. a regular vehicle under those circumstances... For those who mainly cover long distances with their vehicles, hybrids are likely to be negative in payback.
Lest we forget though, cars are fashion statements as much as they are transportation... otherwise we wouldn't have the huge number of different vehicles and amenities to choose from. Hybrids are simply another way for manufacturers to differentiate their wares from the competition. Note the new Acura Hybrid for example, which uses hybrid technology not really to save fuel, but to allow it to accelerate faster.. the fuel savings is less than 5% over the regular model.
An article in Scientific American covered hybrids/hydrogen cars last year concluded that with todays technology the combination of efficient, small diesel power plants and hybrids had the highest potential payoff. As hybrid technology becomes commoditized, I expect the marginal cost to decrease and the options to increase. For example, a car manufacturer could end up offering battery packs with a range of capacities for those that want to recharge their car from the home electrical socket, not the local gas station.
Thus, todays purchasors of Toyota Prius' are making as much a fashion statement as they're showing the EU and US car manufacturers that there is a demand for 'cool' cars that are fuel efficient. Note the much lower demand for the insight... Perhaps the Civic can regain some of the lost ground for Honda. In the meantime, Ford and others have had to license the very technology that was originally dreamed up in the US... just like the scroll compressor and other innovative technologies that the Japanese were first to recognize as revolutionary in their respective industries.
When I used to live in Orange County (south of Los Angeles, for those of you that don't know), I rode around on a little 125cc Scooter about 6 months out of the year (summer-time). I spent about a dollar a week on gas. I'm not joking. (Although at today's prices, it would be about 2 or 3 dollars a week). It wasn't fast enough to go on the freeway, but on all the other streets it performed beautifully. It's nice being able to weave through nasty street traffic...and parking is always right outside the store. I reccommend a scooter or small engine motorcycle to everyone during the summer months.
I think, therefore I doh.
now, i'm all for hybrid technology because you're never really going to get people to put the environment above their own vanity on the priority ladder. so anything that reduces gas consumption by any means is a "good thing." but to believe that people are buying hybrids without any desire to "make a statement" is a bit naive. i think they all want to pat themselves on the back a bit for driving such a conspicuously hybrid vehicle. as evidenced by the kinship they have when passing each other on the road. i've never seen honda crx hf drivers waving at each other and smirking at how green they are.
We can't even bring ourselves to do the right thing when it's only JUST as convenient as doing the wrong thing.
Define "right thing".
My Honda Insight was indeed a very efficient, low-polluting car (rated as "SULEV" by California). It met my needs for quite some time, but eventually my needs required a four-door, durable, reliable car with a large trunk. Thus, I bought my diesel-powered Mercedes and run it on biodiesel and dino-diesel, depending on what's cheaper. Buying diesel fuel, although slightly more expensive, with my Discover credit card (which gives me 5% off) is actually less expensive than buying gasoline cash-only at the el-cheapo station around here.
Also, I loathe the fact that modern cars are made out of thin sheet metal and plastic. Low-speed fender-benders become very expensive. My Mercedes is made from durable materials that, even after 13 years, still look almost new.
Finally, Ford now has a PZEV-rated 130hp engine in their 2005 Focus cars. That's right, a gas-only engine that emits less pollutants than hybrids. And it gets about 35mpg. Not bad at all.
To summarize: There's no such thing as a "right thing" for all people. That's why there's no one-size-fits all vehicle. People have different needs, and different cars meet those needs.
I've gone through four Canadian winters with my Honda Insight, and it has fared just fine, even with temperatures below -30 degrees Celsius. The fuel economy is noticeably worse in cold weather, but the same is true of any car.
The Honda Insight in brutally cold weather is still better for fuel economy than almost any non-hybrid in ideal driving weather.
Hills are even worse for hybrids than you might imagine.
The current generation of hybrids aren't very smart. They try to keep the battery close to topped up which means that you don't have much room to dump regenerated energy. It's classic: in Berkeley you tend to see the more affluent people buying hybrids. They also tend to live up the hill rather than in the flatlands. So...the hybrid's engine runs while they are on the way home as there isn't any way to tell it "don't charge, I'm going home and will come back down the hill tomorrow". Similarly, you can't tell it "don't bother starting the engine, I'm about to go down Marin with a 22% grade and will need all the regenerative braking I can get."
Even worse, one of my mechanic's customers was heading up I5 from LA. As noted above, he couldn't drain the battery flat on his way up the mountain but when he put his Prius in "b" mode (apparently this is the hybrid equivalent of downshifting for engine braking) when he headed down the grapevine toward Bakersfield his car ended up just quitting part way down the hill. It turned out that with no place to put all the regenerated energy he ended up overheating the batteries and tripping an automatic shutdown. After being stranded for a while, everything cooled off and he was able to continue. You simply can't ride brakes down the Grapevine - those who do end up taking the runaway truck ramps and a car that can't provide sufficient engine braking for a basic freeway trip from LA to SF has serious engineering problems (and that doesn't even count the problems some people had with the car dying and having to be towed when you listened to the radio with the engine off then tried to start the car).
Generally I love Toyotas. My first and only car is a 20+ year old Tercel with 230,000 miles on it that just won't offer me the opportunity to need a new one. I get in the mid 30mpg range and insurance/registration is dirt cheap. For now, I'm content to watch the hybrid pioneers get the arrows in their backs.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
Not to mention you get the added bonus of transmission losses during distribution which just doesn't exist for the gasoline
Your ommiting the loss from the fuel for the generators on the oil rigs, for the helicopers used to bring staff on and off them, for the supply ships, for the refinaries back on land and for the trucks which take the stuff from the local depots to the filling stations (tens/hundreds of thousands of which are constantly on the road, all over the globe).
I'm not including things like the constuction of the source (power stations vrs rigs / refinaries / petrol stations, etc) or supply & maintenaince vehicles, which would obviously be reasources common to both, just pointing out that oil is very lossy indeed (much more so than electricity I strongly suspect).
Electricity is far cheaper to produce as a fuel source, as is borne out by the prices reflected for them in the market (and also in the current price of my BP shares [huzza!]). In fact, oil prices go ever upwards and electricity goes ever downwards, a situation which is not going to change.
It would be nice to have some hard data to back up this theory of course, but that would really need a decent fully electrical car we could mesure the usage requirements for (and compare the cost per mile and straight up cost of the vehicle to produce).
City buses cause more pollution per rider than almost any vehicle.
After you factor average riders per bus day, mileage per rider, and the cost of maintenance, the average short bus trip is over $10 (in Chicago) per rider. Some say $18 per trip. Just divide the yearly operating budget by yearly riders and you see a frightening figure.
It would be nice if you could back this up (better than "some say"). Dollar cost != environmental cost. Also, the marginal cost per additional rider is low, so taking the bus instead of driving is still a good benefit.
And all those city employees? Many drive cars.
If they weren't city employees, they would probably still drive cars, so this isn't a good argument.
A while ago on /. they had a guy getting 250 mpg with his hybrid. Oh wait thats right he filled his car with batteries and charged it over night. THATS CHEATING, just shifting the source.
GO BIODIESEL.
If you're interested in driving "greener" don't just look for MPG. See if the car is marked as LE or VLE (low-emission or very-low-emission).
People I work with are MAD that I get good mileage in my Escape Hybrid. It may only be 33 mpg, but they get 12.
When the ones in the old beater tell me they get 40mpg, I ask them how the emissions are. THEY get mad because somehow that makes them evil. I explain that I bought a vehicle that can handle snow, get good mpg in the process, and not pollute (well, not much)
When they tell me that my car is worse overall because of the nasty, evil batteries, I ask them how much of their car can be recycled? Since mine can be.
I get an 8 year warranty on the battery, so that part isn't a problem either.
I am of the mind that buying a hybrid shows interest. Interest that can translate into dollars. The manufacturers can then say "yes, this is something people will buy. Now let's make an even better one. Let's shoot for 70mpg..."
Since we all that nobody is going to force a car maker to build something efficient, if we buy the ones that are, maybe they'll move the process into the more mainstream vehicles.
My mom says I'm cool.
The price you pay for your car also matters, because you're amortizing that as well as buying gas, so if it costs you an extra $10K to buy the car, that's about $1000-3333/year extra, depending on how long you're planning to keep the car, your cost of money, and future value of the potential added resale value if you eventually sell the car. So if buying a hybrid saves you $1000-3333/year in gasoline costs, it was worth spending the money, otherwise not. On the other hand, if you're replacing your leased-during-the-internet-boom BMW with a hybrid instead of another BMW, justifying it because the hybrid is worth as many Coolness Points as another luxury car, you've probably saved money so the lower gas prices are gravy.
I'm a relatively light driver - about 10,000 miles/year on my 1987 Chevy Van, which is about 600 gallons/year, plus my wife drives about 10,000 miles/year on her PT Cruiser, about 450 gallons/year. Replacing the van would saved me about 300-400 gallons/year, which would have been $500/year at last year's gas prices or $1000 at this year's prices, so it'd break even if I could do that for $10K + $2000-3000 tradein value, i.e. not too likely. Instead, since it's an old vehicle, I'm replacing it piece by piece :-) (This year's current pieces are a water pump and however much steering-column it takes to get the electrical system working again....)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Double those numbers. Used 250cc bikes can be found for $1000 and less.
Honda Insight: 73hp, 1850lbs, bullet shaped, hatchback, 2 seater, a superb city, highway, commuter, and picnic car for 2 people and a dog.
It happens to be a hybrid.
Don't go hybrid, be SMARTer!
http://www.smart.com
You'll get more bang from your buck and will lower your gas consumption radically!
The other trouble with sugar cane is it's a very dirty crop; it requires a lot of pesticide and fertilizer to grow well. In Australia (sorry for the Oz-centric examples but it's what I'm most familiar with) the fertilizer runoff from the cane farms is seriously damaging the Great Barrier Reef.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Keep in mind that most small-car diesel engines are turbocharged. Hell, most diesel engines *period* are turbocharged. Turbo's require a lot more responsibility as far as maintinence goes, when compared to the iron-pig gas V8's of yesteryear.
A properly maintained diesel engine however, is a reliable and wonderful way to save on gas - even if it's still at the expense of the environment.
Supporting something that is designed to pollute less and drink less gas is not a bad thing.
I don't understand why people freak out when people buy the best vehicle for their needs.
If you tow something once a year, that doesn't make up for driving a pickup the other 364 days.
If you live somewhere that gets major snowfall, a 4x4 is generally required. I can buy something that gets 12 mpg, or something that gets 30mpg.
Where I live, an Insight, and all those lovely commuters everybody here is saying to get, turn into snowmounds. They can't get on the road, they have such little clearance they get stuck easy.
My mom says I'm cool.
It's all Larry David's fault.
For me, with a 10 mile commute, the answer is a hybrid human/electric vehicle: specifically, a cheap used bicycle from a thrift store, and a Zap Express electric motor kit. http://www.zapworld.com/products/ETC_clearance.asp
As an advantage, it gives me exercise without ever despairing of getting home.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
There have been lots of cars built that do better than 30MPG, some better than 40MPG. Most of them are light-weight uncool econo-boxes, and Fancy New Technology isn't necessarily better than old-fashioned cheapskate technology. My 1985 Toyota wagon got 27mpg or better for its first decade, and was still getting 25mpg (plus oil) when it was an old beater; it's annoying that my 2001 PT Cruiser only gets 22mpg on the highway. A friend of mine had a 45mpg car back in the 70s when he was stationed in Japan, though it probably wouldn't have been street legal in the US.
It might be that the "Right Thing" car for you to use most of the time is a motorcyle, whether that's a big bike for freeway commutes or a scooter for most city driving. Unfortunately, most US state insurance regulations mean that insurance companies are going to charge you lots more money if you've got more vehicles, even if you're not driving them much more, so having a bike that you ride on dry days and a less efficient car that you ride on rainy days may not be cost-effective, even though it's resource-efficient.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The water pump in the Prius is already electric. The problem is, the coolant only stays hot for so long before it has to start the engine again to heat it back up. Mine has given me about 5 minutes of heat in cold (0-10 F) weather before it had to start the engine again. (This only applies to stop and go, where the engine has a chance to shut off.) Obviously running the engine a lot in stop and go traffic affects the gas mileage a bit in that car, but the lowest my weekly average has ever been is 45mpg (combined city/highway, my drive to work is about 50% of each). That's still better than the best my old Contour ever got under the best circumstances (37mpg). In summer I normally average 55-58mpg. So yes, cold weather does drop the gas mileage, but even under the worst conditions it's better than most standard cars. The only non-diesel that comes to mind that can achieve 45mpg is the Geo Metro. I normally get around 45-50mpg on the highway.
My Escape handles hills very nicely.
Now, you do need to watch the cruise control. For some reason it revs to 4000-6000 rpm going up a hill in cruise.
When I turn off cruise and maintain my speed uphill, I can usually do it under 3000 rpm, and sometimes under 2000 where the sweetspot is.
My mom says I'm cool.
Own cache? Sweet! How many megs?
I've read about cryo frozen rotors and they do increase the life time and the strength of the rotors dramatically. Freezing in itself wouldn't increase gas mileage I don't think, however, with stronger parts you might be able to run everything with tigher clearances and increase efficiency. Not sure though, just a theory.
I paid 23K for my 2002 Prius with the navigation system. This was only $1000 more than a Camry with the same.
I have 90K miles on the car. I've had no problems with the hybrid system. There was one recall on a battery pack issue that never affected my car. I've had one problem with the one of the doohickies in the air-quality system, it was covered under warranty. I've had two sets of tires put on the car since I bought it. The original US tires are crap, but they are low rolling resistance, so you get a 2 to 3 mpg additional mileage.
I figure I've been getting 35 to 45 mpg depending on the weather, gas formula and amount of highway driving. On average, I get 40 mpg with highway driving around 75 to 80 mph.
I figured I've more than made up the difference in price with gas savings.
"There are two kinds of bikers. Those that have gone down, and those that will".
Seriously, motorcycles are dramatically more dangerous than cars. While I support those that choose to ride, and will always pull to the side of my lane so that they can lane split, I also realize that they are not a viable solution for the majority of people.
However, the highway I take to work (30 mile commute each way) has a 55 MPH speed limit. Driving on an interstate at 70 MPH lowers my fuel mileage to between 37 and 42 MPG, depending on # of pax, whether the aircon is on, traffic, and whether I keep to the speed limit or let myself slow down a bit when going up hills.
My record-worst mileage was a long trip on a highway with several spots of construction, a new-to-this-car driver (my fiancee), aircon on, 4 pax, and a trunkload of luggage. 32 MPG.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Currently, I drive a 5 year old saturn SL1, teeny tiny (by today's standards) 4 banger, 1.9L. yet, I can squeeze 33-36 mpg out of it for city driving, and on the highway, barring mountains and such, this has topped out at 42-46 mpg. Yet, I can wander into a saturn dealership right now, and I can't find a single vehicle rated over 22/28 city/highway. Why've discontinued the smaller engines in favor of bigger, less efficient ones, and they arent the only ones to do this. Every SINGLE mfr, has gradually reduced the overall mileage of their vehicles. At present we've come nearly 30 years down the technology timeline, and we get the same mileage that cars did in 1976?! Seriously, one of my first cars was a 1975 full size Pontiac with a 455cid engine in it, and it got better mileage than nearly all full size cars on the market do now, and DEFINITELY better mileage than EVERY SUV offered today. know what I got on that bugger? 13mpg, on a good day, 22 on the highway. Sad.
I'm kinda due for a new car, but when I started shopping around, I found a few cars that were appealing, but none got the mileage that my current one does, and honestly, I refuse to buy a Prius and give Toyota money, just so they can dump the profits from my purchase back into making more Tundra's and Sequoia's. Honda is even partially guilty of this, and they are mostly quite good when it comes to fuel efficiency. Did you know the accord hybrid gets the same mileage as the regular ICE one? Oh, the hybrid just has more power for getting off the line, great use of technology, boys.
Hybrid's are not the point, using less gas doesnt count, using NO gas should be the goal. damn, my altruistic views again.
"See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
You can buy a late 90's VW Passat TDI for well under $10,000, and unlike your average gasoline powered car, these things last (relavitely) FOREVER. I'm nearing 200,000 miles on mine, and it acturally drives BETTER than new! Then, while you're feeling all high and mighty about driving a car with such great fuel economy, you can really up the stakes and switch to biodiesel! You will be travelling in style inflicting much less damage to the environment to the word than even the Prius owners!
1: They are more expensive.
Until tax time. Or even sooner, depending on the state. In some states, you pay no state sales tax on the vehicle for it being a hybrid.
2: Batteries are expensive to replace.
My hybrid has an 8 year warranty on the battery. I will keep my vehicle way past that. But how many people do you know that only own a vehicle for 3-4 years? I've worked with people here for 5 years, and they've gone through 3 cars EACH since I've known them.
3: Batteries are not good for the environment.
Neither is smog. But to stay on point, batteries only hurt the environment when you chuck them in a landfill. If you recycle or trade out with the manufacturer, they get put to use again.
4: People who plugin are paying for electricity.
5: The electricity use above is non friendly.
Unless they have solar, wind, or other sources at their home. Many people advocating that idea have solar at home for just this reason.
My mom says I'm cool.
Where I live, many of the bicyclists ignore traffic laws (for example, running red lights). Then they complain when one of them gets run over and call for new legislation because people "don't respect bicycles".
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Any modern (second half of the '90s onward) VW turbo diesel will give you mileage on a par with the hybrids, and you can run biodiesel or petrodiesel, or a mix. One of the new Beetles or a Golf can get upwards of 50MPG. The Jettas are not a lot worse, and neither are the Passats.
;-)
I know 2 people with Honda hybrids - a Civic and the little 2-door one (Insight?). The Civic gets in the low 40s MPG-wise, and the other one is around 50. Another person I know with a Jetta TDI gets mileage comparable to the Civic Hybrid, on biodiesel.
And unlike petro-anything, biodiesel will only come down in price as distributed production (not "energy industry" controlled production) increases. Then there's the comfort factor of a technology that's been around the block, as opposed to a rather kludgy hack that puts a bunch of battery acid travelling 65+ MPH two and a half feet from the back of your head while you're strapped into a nifty compactable container.
BTW - if you're in the Southeast US and looking to sell a reasonably-late-model Jetta or Golf TDI, I'm in the market.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Not super fast but will cruise at 90 all day long on the highway. One of the most solid cars I ever owned with the exception of the AC... Big, comfortable, still gets 25 mpg...I heard the 300SDs do a little better but have no evidence. There are lots of people converting them to WVO because of the big trunk and the completely mechanical fuel system.
12:50 - press return.
So charge the batteries at night when demand is at its lowest.
I just did the math, and it's kind of interesting. (These numbers are based my memory of the last utility bill)
You're saying you're getting 180 miles on a fill, but let's take Honda at their word, and use 240 miles. (30mpg, 8gge capacity)
It takes 12hrs to fill the tank with a Phill. Fine, no problem. Just plug it in every night and forget about it.
The Phill takes 800W!
So, 800W x 12hrs = 9.6kWh. Since that's quite likely to kick you into over-baseline usage, let's use 17cents/kWh.
That means a fill up costs $1.63 just for the electricity, plus the natural gas.
That gas is 8GGE (Honda specs), or about 10 therms. Again, you're going to be over-baseline, so we're talking about $1.20/therm.
So.. $13.63 for 240 miles = 5.7 cents/mile.
Compare that to a Civic Hybrid:
$3/gal, 48mpg = 6.25 cents/mile.
Pretty interesting numbers.
You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
If you want a more efficient hybrid, you need to do a number of things: (1) Make the batteries "smart" packs of 4 D-Cell NIMHs, which can be replaced with more simple D-Cell NiMHs without replacing the smart unit. The smart unit should include a capacitor, and be able to handle both the charging and orderly discharging, in conjunction with other smart units, to yield any current/voltage output pattern needed. The smart unit can also identify when a battery needs to be replaced, and can handle a software update. (2) stores the NIMHs *and* the *squirrel-cage* AC motor in the wheel hub. This allows the separate development of the body, hybrid unit, etc, and also allows the wheel hub's motion to piggy-back the hybrid motion. (3) has an underpowered motor turning the axle. (4) Is super-lightweight. In other words, carbon-composite and Kevlar construction. Do this, and the car will probably be cost efficient.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
How much energy goes into producing a car and into the necessary repairs, versus how much energy is used in operating a car (on average) ?? I have no clue. Please tell me.
I've been told a solar cell for example needs to operate a few years before it has generated the energy used to produce it in the first place.
Anyway, its a good time to read my book "Traffic Life" over at www.trafficlife.com
Stephan
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
Indeed, if you practice it every day (weather permitting), you'll get into shape quite fast. I'm doing it for two years now, and while at first I got 20km/h on average on a 12km trip, now I'm at 26km/h! Also I lost quite some weight, so now I'm without overweight (probably for the first time in my life).
Now I also make larger trips sometimes, around 70-100km, just pick a direction and go. There are times when I would have dropped dead. As a bonus I've discovered dozens of breathtaking landscapes near my home that I never knew existed.
I wonder how big the effect of these high gas prices will be on public health in general. Less pollution? People getting more excercise? Will it show up on charts?
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
What amazes me is that on a self-proclaimed nerd site, none of the posters seem to be excited about the new technology inside the Prius and the opportunity to own it for about the same price as a Camry and way cheaper than a sports car or luxury car. Instead there is post after post on how buyers must be deluded enviro-weenies.
... with a gasoline powered generator!
If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
I'd like to see a pluggable biodiesel electric hybrid. There are diesel cars that get better mileage than the Prius, like the VW Jetta. Diesel fuels are getting cleaner and when you use biodiesel it's way cleaner. Forget soy biodiesel; acre for acre it's the worst producer only 50 gallons. Go for rapeseed or mustard seed. Use the fuel produced to power the tractor, thus eliminating the petroleum energy subsidy. They produce almost 3x as much, 140 gals/acre. Or better yet, algae can produce 10,000 to 20,000 US gal/acre. Yes, algae! Then make them pluggable. You cannot plug the Prius or the Civic Hybrid into the grid to take advantage of that offpeak electricity. There are aftermarket kits. True, it's shifting the source of the pollution, but with nuclear, wind, solar, hydroelectric, and coal. You aren't burning petroleum.
Global peak oil is perhaps less than a decade away.
Clean diesel is the way to go. Deisel engines can even burn straight vegetable oil with minor modification. Of course, we can't power America on leftover McDonald's french fry grease, but any little bit will help. We can change our habits now. Or they will be changed for us later.Remember Fight Club? How Brad Pitt's character stole liposuctioned fat and made soap out of it. Animal fat can be used to make biodiesel. America could solve its energy and obesity problems at the same time. Picture Bubba's Liposuction and Biodiesel Filling Station. We could all drive around on our fat asses.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
People see a hybrid as a cure-all for the real problem - people drive too much. The fact that they need tax breaks for hybrids means that they do not make finacial sense, and frankly, makes me livid. I drive a non-hybrid that gets 30+ mpg and drive ~5 miles/day. Why should I subsidize someone who drives a hybrid SUV getting the same mileage 60 miles per day?
It's possible.
For all my commuting and lots of errand running, I use a bicycle, which gets near-as-dammit to infinite MPG. It was also only $600.
For long range driving, I drive a 2004 Corvette, which gets 30 MPG on the highway - not bad at all for a 400 HP car that'll do 12.2 in the 1/4.
So all things considered, I think I'm doing better for the environment than most of the oh-so-trendy hybrid driving yuppies, while also doing the gearhead thing and having a powerful sports car. All things considered, I'll stack my lifetime MPG and greenhouse emissions against the hybrid folks' any day, even if they look down on me for driving a powerful car. If I drive a 25 MPG car (my lifetime average in the Vette) only 1/10th as much as they drive a 60 MPG hybrid, I come out *waaay* ahead, even if they get all self rightious about driving a hybrid.
Curious. Do bikes have the same emission policies (adjusted for being smaller engines of course) as cars?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
And you can make/convert your own electric car far easier than making a hybrid. Simple, yet high tech, sounds like just thing thing for the average /.'er.
I have a short commute and an EV is ideal. No worry about the gas engine needing to be pre-warmed to reach efficiency, no hauling around extra mechanical parts, engine, and the fuel of a hybrid. Every few years change out the batteries, maybe once a decade move the electric parts from one donor car into a new one.
If you are really clever and handy you can even make your own fuel...
http://www.evconvert.com/
The record for mileage is over ten thousand miles per gallon.
Look for: "MicroJoule" "Team Fancy Carol" "Shell EcoMarathon"
These are not normal passenger cars, but we can learn someting from these experiments.
"the average short bus trip is over $10 (in Chicago) per rider"
Huh? When I was in Chicago (granted this was the late 90s), a bus ride with transfer was about $2. Who pays for the other $8?
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
I dunno about that "coal is cleaner than gas" thing, man. Sure, it might be easier to scrub NOx, COx, HC, (etc etc) emissions from a central location. However, that would completely ignore all the toxic metals that coal powerplants release. Fun stuff like mercury, uranium, lead... pretty much anything you can dig up, will be spit out into the air. So while switching to electric-powered-by-coal-cars might save a few people from NOx poisons (or whatever), how many others will wind up dying from increased heavy-metal poisons and radiation? 'Damned if you do, damned if you don't'. At least until some bright monkey invents cold fusion. That, or the world goes nuclear.
(I think i'll bet on the cold-fusion monkey. It seems more likely.)
So the heart of their argument is that 41% of our electricity comes from hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, and wind power. Yet we will not be seeing significant investment in hydroelectric or nuclear power any time soon. Instead, the popular practice will be to build coal plants to meet increasing demand from electric vehicles. Thus, their whole argument is flawed.
Peugot make a variant of some of their models known as a HDI that gets mileage that rivals Hybrid. They're basically a Turbo Diesel. The 3door 307 gets about 4.3 Litres to 100km (~60 Miles to a gallon?) on the Highway. I haven't seen any "city" running figures though. They also have a 2Litre wagon with the same tech.
-----------------
My 2c
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
So you want to make a statement about saving the environment...
How about buying a USED car...
Look at all the raw materials used to make a new car... all the metals, plastics, dyes, paints, (leather?) rubber, and other petroleum based products.
Buy a used car and all the crap doesn't have to be used for the first time, it can be REUSED...
and don't give me this cr@p about how your car is made from 100% recycled materials...
Tax credits are good.
And that isn't entirely true anymore for some of the panel technologies.
Considering that a solar panel is warranted for 20 years, and expected to last longer than that, I can't see that being a problem with amount of energy generated over time.
I will say this, I would have no problem with landfills 20 years from now filling up with solar panels. For that to happen, that would mean a lot were in use. And solar is best when you conserve on power use before sizing the system. In other words, if you use 60W bulbs and old appliances, you'll need a bigger system. A much more expensive system. If you use more efficient gear, THEN size your system, you'll end up with a much less expensive one. If people were buying energy efficient stuff, that would help everybody out.
The big change for solar will be when they can make it out of a lower grade silicon. Right now, the solar companies are fighting with the chip industry to get the good silicon. As soon as they get that right, and it's well underway, the prices should drop big again.
My mom says I'm cool.
Most of the downsides of Hybrids can also be applied to the downsides of any electric vehicle. The envo-friendly people dont understand that when you push for electric vehicles you are only "moving" the pollution from one source to the other.
/. comment about the efficiency of modern steam turbines (author says up to 60%). Most Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) are around 20-25% efficient. So even if you replace an ICE with a BEV (battery electric vehicle) and burn the gas that the ICE would've used in a turbine power plant, you're still doubling the efficiency of the fleet.
large powerplants are significantly more efficient than small gasoline engines. See this
Never mind the fact that it's significantly easier to clean up 1 powerplant than 100,000 tailpipes...
But, they dont care, as long as the pollution isnt around "them"... which creates the need for more electric plants, but they dont have any place to put the electric plants since no one wants a nuclear facility in their backyard... or coal burning, or, etc, etc.
There's plenty of spare capacity at night. My Aunt in Phoenix already has a nuclear facility in her backyard (Palo Verde). She's got a dual rate plan, and pays $.04/KWh after 9pm. If I had an electric vehicle that was relatively inefficient, and used 500Wh/mile (charging inefficiencies included), it'd still only cost me $.02 to go 1 mile, as long as I charge up at night.
As you can see, everyone wants all the benefits, but none of the downsides. What are we going to do with these millions of batteries when they need to be disposed?
Lead-Acid batteries are relatively easy to recycle. Do some research, and you'll find that the benefits of electric vehicles far outway the downsides.
AC Propulsion's website has some good articles on the superiority of electric vehicles...
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
I have a VW Diesel Golf.
It holds four adults such that a one hour drive is not uncomfortable but I wouldn't go cross-country.
I get 600 miles to a 13 gallon tank of gas.
It holds all my scuba gear without dropping the seats.
Now if I could get Bio-Diesel it would be damn near perfect! No sulfur, very clean, biodegradable fuel and the Oil Cronies don't get a friggin' dime.
Thats how I get to work. Its called light rail, its been around for 100 years, no fancy pie in the sky technology needed, just political will, it costs $50 a month for unlimited use in San Francisco. Eventually as gas hits $10 a gallon we may see newer cities installing subways and light rail.
I'm really tired of "news" corporations bashing hybrids with statements that are absolutely false.
I have 2005 prius. it has ~3500 miles and I'm getting about 51-53 mpg/tank. I bought it in San Francisco, and drove from Berkely to South Orange County on one (the first) tank of gas (11 gallon tank), was going about 75mph, and I got an average of 48 mpg on the trip, in 100+ degree weather (so AC was on the entire way) and the only time I stopped was to get a drink and to relieve myself. oh yeah and there was 1.5 gallons left in the tank (based on how much fuel went when I filled up). So this 42% drop off of EPA mileage is B.S.
now that the motor has broken in I'm averaging about 50-55 mpg on the freeway at speeds of 65-70. For point of reference I drove from South O.C. to Los Angeles last week and got 57 mpg on the trip of ~120 miles.
Clearly the EPA estimates are pretty close to real world results.
The other thing to remember is that the Prius is a fairly roomy four-door sedan, so while it may not equal the honda's economy, it has more room and IMO a much higher quality finish to the interior.
Finally, my monthly gas bill has dropped over $150 which is more than a third of my car payment and frankly, the cars I could've bought for roughly $200/mo don't hold a candle in terms of size, cargo space, technology and quality to the Prius.
If you consider the source of this misinformation, is it so surprising that a media who avoids hard reporting about oil conglomerates colluding to raise prices, waging oil wars in Africa and oppressing people in the third world to exploit their natural resources, is suddenly badmouthing a design of car whose entire goal is to reduce oil consumption?
A couple points:
1. Hybrid owners most likely will *not* keep the car past warranty. They fully know its going to be a maintance nightmare.
2. Hybrid owners were going to spend that much anyway on a car, and now enjoy higher MPG without buying a cheesy 100-120 hp Geo/Kia/whatever.
3. Hybrid owners may be getting subsidies from the state, thus lowering the overall cost.
I think point 2 is the most important. If someone was planning on spending that much on a car anyway then its already a sunk cost.
One could easily argue that air conditioning is never worth it and should be abandoned because of how much gas it uses, maintenance, etc compared to rolling down the windows and dealing with the heat. But people can afford AC units in cars and will give up one convience (MPG) for another (AC). The same is true with hybrids. You give up the best MPG deal (a Kia or a Scion) for a nicer car (an Accord or Prius) with very good MPG.
As long as Honda and the rest keep attracting this demographic the more mainstream the hybrid comes and arguable lower costs and eventually a hybrid which can outperform Kia on cost. At first all things are expensive.
However, the location of CO2 emissions is irrelevant. NOx and SOx emissions, however, to matter locally. I am not sure how hybrids perform with respect to these emissions. They are rather hard to deal with. Catalytic converters do a wonderful job of removing them - after they have heated up. Nowadays, the majority of your NOx and SOx emissions occur in the first mile or so, when the catalytic converter is still cold and can't do its job.
I am willing to bet there are cheaper alternatives to reducing these emissions than hybrid cars, even locally.
yep, the EPA maintains policy on motorcycle emissions just the same as cars. we need to pass inspection at the DMV just like everyone else :P
-dk
Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
if your 'commute is not too long' -- then why not consider :-}
using a bike to get to work for a year (or part of a year, if
the winter puts you off)? -- biking makes you feel great.
you don't need to pay for a gym, and if your commute is
less than 20 minutes by bike (10kms), its a great way to
get to work refreshed and feeling alive.
best regards,
john penner (toronto bike commuter - 5yrs)
I'm not sure why, but no-one has mentioned the Lexus RX400h
It can run on batteries whilst you drive your daughter to school and then the rather large 3.3 litre petrol engine can kick in to get you to work. It has part-time 4WD and it's size will help when you hit that deer. If you care, it does 0-60mph in about 7.5 seconds - and will go upto around 130mph (if you want to go that fast in something weighing 2 tonnes)
In the UK the police are looking to use them: http://www.mixedpower.com/modules.php?name=News&fi le=article&sid=739
The main thing for me is that you go from something like 15mpg in normal SUV to more like 30mpg (in a suburban run). Petrol in the UK is approaching 1 GBP per litre (nearly 7 USD/gal). When you're in city traffic you aren't making the problem worse, you just sit inertly. It uses a constantly variable transmission and so is apparently very smooth to drive. It even brings the petrol engine to rest in a position where it's ready to start back up again.
If you go for the 45k GBP version you get a highly-luxurious, relatively efficient, pretty fast 4WD SUV.
I believe there's quite a waiting list in the US for them.
All freight locomotives and many passenger locomotives are diesel-electrics. A diesel engine spins a generator that generates power for electric motors, and those motors alone drive the vehicle. So there's already a huge diesel-electric market in the U.S.
The actual reason there are few diesels in the U.S. is due to our strict environmental controls; they are lax for trucks but strict for cars, so there were no diesel cars here for a long time until VW's new TDi.
The reason there are no diesel-electric hybrids is because all the hybrids are being created by Japanese manufacturers, and they create gasoline cars. German manufacturers like diesel, and indeed they are creating many diesel cars, and there are even plans for some of them to create diesel-electric hybrids, though they're still largely reluctant to embrace hybrids. They seem to view hybrids as Japanese and diesel as European, which is stupid -- both are good technologies.
~CGameProgrammer( );
From an engineering perspective, there is probably a good reason why car companies don't build AC plugs into their hybrid cards. Won't the deep-cycle of and AC charge + battery-only commute kill your battery pack sooner than the shallow-cycles it normally doles out? If I'm wrong, then yeah, it's a great idea. But if I'm right, then you will be in for a $,$$$.$$ expense far sooner than you like.
"all the hybrids are being created by Japanese manufacturers,"
You must not be familiar with the FORD Escape Hybrid http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/escapehybrid/
Kevin Drum recently quoted a study which re-iterated that there's no "real" advantage to buying a hybrid. It's only just as convenient - so if you're driving a hybrid, you're doing it for some other reason than financial incentive.
My reasons were financial. The reasons against a hybrid are all related to short commutes and freeway speeds.
I have a long commute. Part of it is in the stuck in traffic creep and crawl driving. There are no EPA listing for cars on gallons/per hour they burn creeping while driving with the brake pedal.
I found a few nice things about my hybrid. I used to drive older cars to the point where alternators, starters, hoses, brakes and such became regular breakdown items.
The Prius is easy on the brakes, has no hydraulic power steering, no belt driven alternator, no brushes in the alternator, no torque converter, no bands or friction parts in the transmission... In short many high failure items are simply not on a Prius. I expect to replace the radiator hose and the AC belt like I would on a regular car and in addition the electric water pump, but oil changes and brake service are at much longer intervals.
If I didn't have a long commute and often in real slow traffic, it wouldn't make sense.
Leaving Houston in front of the storm, Hybrids went much much longer before running out of gas. In any major traffic jam, there is some idiot with only a quarter tank of gas that runs out in the back-up adding to the problem. The Prius is very rarely the one because they quit burning gas at a high rate in the slow traffic unlike regular cars.
Does anybody know of a Prius that that ran out of gas in a traffic back-up?
The truth shall set you free!
What is it with geeks, all driving hybrids or praising virtues of 4 cylinder FWD econoboxes?
I am feeling little down after filling up but I get my SEG back immediately after leaving the gas station sideways.
So charge the batteries at night when demand is at its lowest.
With roof-mounted photovoltaics too!
no, wait. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Actually - I don't have data to back this up right now, but wind, is the fastest growing power generation source in the US right now.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
One of the assumptions that you made there is that the price of gas would stay the same for the next 9.61 years. If it is $5/gal next summer and higher each year after that how fast can you "pay off" the extra cost of the hybrid?
One of the reasons to buy a hybrid, or a diesel now is that if the price continues to rise quickley, the demand for hybrids and diesels and subsequently their price will rise. A new prius or a Golf TDI might cost less now than a used one will next year.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Doing the math before the most recent gas price increases, I came up with it taking 140,000 miles of driving before the gas savings of a hybrid over a regular version of the same car would overcome the price difference. So, if you're buying a hybrid to spend less on gas, you're busy failing. If you're buying a hybrid for environmental reasons, you're paying a premium to make a social statement, and buying a band-aid technology that isn't the solution.
That made me think: what a perfect example of just how fucking useless as a society we've become. We can't even bring ourselves to do the right thing when it's only JUST as convenient as doing the wrong thing. And that's not even considered odd. Even sadder.
:-)
For your average person, when doing the "right" thing involves spending $12k more for a hybrid vs a Honda with nearly as good fuel efficiency (or a diesel of some sort), then the "right" thing isn't necessarily the "right" decision.
If you can afford to throw away that kind of money, more power to you. For now it's not practical. I have no doubt these things will improve and someday they'll become more people's first option. Of course, making them not look like roller skates would be a good first step.
That's crap, as are the above comments that chime in about actual savings, true mileage etc, without considering what americans pay for cars, how much gas we consume, etc.
Here are some actual facts:
The average price PAID for a car in the US is about 26 grand. The best selling cars in the US are the Ford F-150, and the Chevy Silverado--gas guzzlers, with MSRPs that start at about 10 grand more.
My parents have a 2003 model prius, which they paid 21 grand for (and the MSRP is still about that). Granted, you can't haul wood in the thing, but it fits 4 adults quite comfortably, has no trouble doing 85 on the highway if need be, and while not a performance hound, it's a fun little drive.
As far as mileage, they put about 12-15,000 miles on it every year, and regularly drive it in both suburbia and on regular 2-3 hour hauls; they also take a couple 7-8 drives hour per year. My father, bless him, has kept a journal of the car's mileage the entire time (along with his other cars), and depending on who is driving--a huge factor, mind you--he has an overall average mileage of 43.7 MPG. (When my leadfoot mother drives, it drops as low as 32 MPG, usually 35 or so, and my dad regularly gets 50-plus MPG, but mostly because he's a passive driver.) That's a sampling of over 2.5 years of driving (and the 2004 model apparently gets better mileage, is bigger, and has a more powerful engine).
Now, compared with his buick century, which remarkably gets 22 MPG on a good day, and that's substantial. He admitted the first year he bought the Prius that he was only realizing $600 gas savings per year, but now that gas has more than doubled in price since then (and not going to get better any time soon), he's sitting pretty. The government kicked in a nice retroactive tax break for him as well.
So for those who say it's too expensive--you already pay more. For those who say the mileage sucks--you likely get half as much. And it's still virtually emission-free.
Righteous indeed.
Get the economy of scale working, get the car companies working towards better batteries and technologies.
I still think it's better to just stay out of vehicles whenever possible.
I take public transit into work, and it's awesome. I get to play an hour of Tiger Woods on my PSP (or catch up on the weeks BattleStar Galactica, playing off a memory stick), or read a book - two things that probably shouldn't be done while operating a motor vehicle.
Another option that's really cool here in Vancouver is the Car Co-op. You pay a monthly fee and a per-kilometer fee (if you drive alot, you pay a higher montly fee and a lower per-km fee, but if you don't use a car much, then you can get a lower monthly fee and a higher per-km fee). All you have to do is leave the vehicle clean, and put gas in it if it's got less than a quarter tank (and the co-op reimburses you for the fuel). This gives you access to a vehicle if you need it, and you avoid the hassle of ownership.
I think there are lots of ways of getting out of cars, and that should be the goal. Cars create pollutants during manufacture (think of all the batteries a hybrid uses, the paint, the plastics, etc), use a lot of electricity (to mine, refine, transport all the steel and other components), use a precious, finite resource, and put alot of crud into the air.
wanted to go with biodiesel. i live in LA, (southern califonia) where you cant buy a new diesel car (one with 7500 miles on it) and if you do manage, theres no biodiesel here either (ive looked long and hard, if you know of biodeisel gas stations, please tell me)
given that my car is starting to cost more to maintain than its worth, and since i dont like the idea of adding yet another heap of metal to a landfill (and because im not a mechanic) im looking at new cars. would have rather waited for the newer things to come out, but thats perpetual.
the insight isnt as nice a car on the inside (where i will be when im actually driving. the view is great from inside the prius), and the electric assist motor doesnt really leave room for another energy source. the prius does. it also does well on crash tests and cargo space. while not a sports car, the 0 ramp up time for the motor could certainly help avoiding those accidents.
for now, plugging in a modded prius might use coal energy. maybe. maybe that electricity is hydro, maybe its nuclear, maybe it came from a farm of sterling engines... the point is, its not stuck on
that like the hybrid assist engines.
of course, it is a new, thin metal car, and low speed fender benders could be expensive. but i care more about the big accidents that this thing was made to let the people survive (as oppsed to trashing the people in favor of itself like the old big cars like to do)
supposedly the entire battery is recyclable and not environmentally dangerous. i dont know enough chemistry to prove/disprove this, but it makes sense. something to look up later. but thats an after thought given other factors. (a normal gas car still does much damage)
i dont really like the idea of the car depending on electricity if it doesnt have to, a biodiesel engine whos battery was there soley for the lights and radio (and maybe a plug for your own toys) would be great, since i like simplicity of design (funny idea that simple designs tend to be more reliable, or at least more predictable) but since im stuck with electric, might as well take as much advantage of it as i can. do bad you cant get a car which can run solely on electric or fuel without worry of the other.
the cng car would be good if it also had an unleaded or diesel option...
btw, i dont give a crap about fasion. in fact, i find much of it ugly.
One point people miss is that the designers of the Prius, at least, were pursuing low emissions with fuel economy being a nice side effect.
When the exhaust system is cold, there's a tradeoff between fuel economy and emission control. The car's software chooses emission control. Drive a Prius for 15 minutes and look at the central display's bar graph of fuel economy over time. It looks like a staicase, where each 5-minute average is much higher than the one before. Until you get the catalytic converter fully warmed up(*) you won't see the advertised mileage. In a five or ten minute commute you can even get a Prius to average less than 40 mpg.
(*) The car's software is so determined to keep the catalytic converter at its most effective temperature that it will start the gas engine even if the car is stopped and the battery is charged, just to keep the catalytic converter warm.
If all your trips are under 10-15 minutes then buy a Prius for the reliability, comfort, or low pollution -- you won't get the gas mileage.
"They may make a social statement you're interested in, but if you want to save money because of rising gas prices, you're heading down the wrong road, at least for now."
That's totally true. If we ever get $3.50/gallon gas prices, then the equation will radically shift in the other direction. But to be honest, I doubt we'll see expensive gas that soon. The current gas bubble is just that, and prices will normalize after a few weeks back to their nominal $2.00/gallon price.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cows2aug02 ,0,5709626.story?coll=la-home-headlines
http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asp
I'm all for saving the environment. I've stopped eating at McDonalds.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Good oh. I live in Australia, which has about the same land area as the USA, and 1/15 of the population. So by your idiotic logic I am 'entitled' to 15 times as much oil as you.
pressure car companies to make lighter cars with:
a) low rolling resistance
b) low drag coefficient
c) smaller engine
and then support them by buying these cars, however ugly they may look to you
You get a tax credit for the panels, do a grid tie and they have to buy excess, payback is on the order of 3-4 years...
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Not to mention you get the added bonus of transmission losses during distribution which just doesn't exist for the gasoline (at least not more so than coal or natural gas is subject to).
Hmm... I guess petrol must be cheaper than mains power then, since it's more efficient. Right?
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
>I don't think the battery is supposed to last 10 years.
Toyota's currently saying "life of the car", whatever they mean by that. They're confident enough to warranty the Prius battery for 8 years or 100,000 miles.
Until there are 10-year-old Priuses we'll have to make do with lab tests and high-cycle cars. Toyota claims to have put batteries through a simulated 150,000 miles on the bench with only minor performance loss. More realistically, Yellow Cab in Vancouver BC put a Prius into taxi service (if you didn't know, generally the worst thing you can do to a car) and racked up 200,000 miles on the factory drivetrain before Toyota bought it back for study.
Your eyebrows *should* be going up. The NiMH batteries in our toys seldom get past a few hundred cycles or a few years. The difference seems to be fanatically conservative charge control by the car's software.
Good point about regenerative braking. But wait, there's more.
Gas engines have one speed and power setting where they're most efficient. This setting is almost certainly not identical to your freeway cruising speed. A hybrid can cycle the gas engine between most-efficient and turned-off using the battery to keep your speed constant.
Good point about driving technique too. Another way to put it is that every time you hit the brakes in a 20th-century car you have just pumped oil from a war zone and burned it to heat your brake linings.
Whatever floats your boat. EVs are fine if that's your thing, but they do tend to restrict you a bit. Let's say you had an appointment right after work; should you take your EV home first and grab your other vehicle, or will you risk running out of power on the way back home from the appointment? Hybrids may not be as clean as EVs, but they're more flexible and have greater range. This may change if EV charging stations start popping up around town, but for now, for many people, hybrid is better.
I know what you mean about the ski pass, I sometimes buy a bus pass in my city because of the convenience of not having to have $1.50 around when I need to take the bus, and when I have a bus pass I take the bus more often.
Doesn't this mean that you will end up consuming just as much gas in your Prius as you would have in a Corolla, though, since you're driving more?
in Virginia at least, cars which qualify for Clean Special Fuel (CF) plates are allowed in the HOV-2 lanes with one person on board. Unfortunately, the law which added the Toyota and Honda hybrids to the list allowed for CF plates expires next July :(
But for now I save something between 15 and 25 hours on the road each week by riding HOV for a large portion of my 35 mile (one-way) commute, and that's worth a bunch ..
In Los Angeles, there are two additional reasons for getting a high MPG vehicle. First you can drive in the carpool lane with only one passenger and secondly you can park anywhere in the city of Los Angeles without feeding the meter.
If you live here you'll know those two benefits are worth a lot.
Of course some people will say that these are perks that come at everyone else's expense. True but these cars are BENEFITING everyone else in several ways that ordinary cars don't. For example by cutting down on oil imports they reduce our exposure to the middle east and all that implies*. Secondly cutting down on greenhouse gasses benefit everyone not just the drivers.
I believe economists call these "externalities" and the city of Los Angeles and the state of California have sought to encourage the purchase of these vehicles for the PUBLIC benefits that they bring.
* There was a study done where it claimed if everyone drove on of these vehicles instead of their current cars, we wouldn't have ANY oil imports (or maybe just those from the middle east).
And what if every filling station allowed you to replace your battery with a recharged one (at a cost of course)? You'd have the best of both worlds. it's only a matter of standardizing the battery packs and a simple balanced hoist at the filling station. If there's a will it will get done.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
I'm watching for a hybrid with plug-in capability
so I can often run on the electric motors,
like for short commutes,
using the gas engine only when desired.
Good opportunity for a new a different
vehicle manufacturer since the prominent
car makers don't seem to be talking about plug-in
capability. Maybe they're doing it secretly.
"They may make a social statement you're interested in, but if you want to save money because of rising gas prices, you're heading down the wrong road, at least for now."
It's not just a social statement, and it's not just about saving money. You know the soundbites about our dependencies on foreign oil? Well, I want us to be less dependent on foreign oil. As I see it, driving the most fuel efficient car that I can does one person's part of lessening that dependency. Plus, I'm "voting with my wallet," telling Honda or Toyota or whatever, "make more of these," and perhaps by proxy telling Ford and GM that perhaps they should do the same.
Some of you already have those cute little shirts on that say disco sucks, right? That's not all that sucks.-Frank Zappa
What statement do you really make by buying a car? I presume you think the statement is "you care". But about what? Technology? Fashion? The future? The economy? Some carmaker's bottom line? The promise of a great new world? The environment? If it costs you more than other options producing similar mileage then you're not making a very good statement that you're saving resources.
Take a look at Germany. Average prices are around 1.34 Euros for a liter of 98 octane nowadays. That translates into 6,11 US$ per gallon!
On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
For American style lives and commutes a hybrid is laughable. It is not the best solution by far. Perhaps in Tokyo it makes sense. When I was there it can take hours to go very little distance and most of the time you are standing still. On a freeway a 4 cylinder Honda does better. Leaders of the European car makers said at the auto show that this is Americans, they like to talk the talk, but really DON'T walk the walk, and hybrids are nothing more than "see look I am cool and doing something" but really doing nothing for the environment long term. They cost more, do use less gas but are not the solution for helping the environment, and the batteries will be an enivromental disaster to dispose of. Like "clean" nuclear power, no fossil fuels but what the hell about the waste.
The premium you pay for a hybrid right now is pretty large and the gas you save doesn't make up for it over the life of the car. But in a couple of years, it might. Right now, the extra cost is basically due to three things:
The first is demand since there is a mild panic about gas prices right now, but that will change in a few years, even if gas prices don't go down much (though I think they will go down some).
The second is the batteries, and that won't change much, so there will probably always be a premium for that reason, unless some dramatic battery technology improvement comes along.
The third is the extra complexity of the car in general and the fact that it's new technology that the industry hasn't figured out how to make cheaply yet. I'm fairly confident time will change this as well. For one thing, if you look at the mechanism that the Toyota Prius uses, you'll see that it's really clever. The Power Split Device that they use is actually fairly simple, and it acts as a replacement for a transmission. The power split device doesn't actually seem much more complicated than a traditional transmission, and it is even missing some of the complicated parts of a traditional transmission, like a torque converter or a clutch. I could imagine that eventually this thing could be just as cheap to make as a regular tranmission, or possibly even cheaper.
So what this all adds up to is that my guess is that the premium for a hybrid will not ever go away completely because you will always have to have batteries, but the premium you pay for a more fuel-efficient car could drop to only a $1000 or $2000 above what you'd pay for the equivalent non-hybrid car. If/when that happens, hybrids will become financially worth it.
Personally, I think it's likely that we will reach a point in the near future (maybe even in the next 5 years) where hybrid cars will become the better alternative financially. And when that happens, they will reach a sort of critical mass: their increased popularity will mean more and more models will be introduced, which will in turn lead to the kinks being worked out, making them an even more attractive option.
And for that reason, I think buying a hybrid can be more than a political statement. The more people buy hybrids, the more motivated the auto industry will be to spend money on R&D for hybrids, and the sooner they will reach critical mass. So, if you buy a hybrid, it wouldn't be unreasonable to take the view that part of your money went to accelerating the adoption of hybrids. You can think of it as not just a political statement but your contribution towards making hybrids mainstream and ultimately reducing the fuel consumption of the average car.
How about... because you can already buy a car that gets > 50 mpg (VW Golf Diesel TDI) and costs a hell of a lot less. Even with $3/gal gas and a hybrid that gets 75 MPG, and even assuming the hybrid doesn't cost any more to maintain than the TDI, the breakeven is at about 900,000 miles. I doubt either one of them could go that far without insane maintenance costs.
If they wanted to, car companies could already make similarly sized cars that got very close to that good mileage, they're doing hybrid mainly so they can say they're doing something, and to have something to sell to the green types.
I'm a green type myself, but I also believe in K.I.S.S. - I would rather drive a simpler car than a Rube Goldberg device that manages to squeak out another 20% more mileage at the expense of a LOT more complications and a lot more expense and energy to manufacture.
Let me speak for myself: I am in the market for buying a new car soon. Why I would go with a hybrid has mostly to do with how I see cars will evolve in the future.
1. Even though it may not make fully economic sense _now_, gas prices have got nowhere to go but up.
2. Hybrid gas mileage has nowhere to go but down. Imagine the combustion engine driving a generator only, charging batteries, batteries driving the wheels. So the combustion engine only fires when the batteries need charging. And the engine load is always the same, runs at fixed RPM, so it's going to be much easier to make it run more efficient and cleanly. And I'm guessing drivetrain (combustion->drivetrain->motion) losses are comparable to combustion->electric->motion losses. I think this is how diesel trains work. The combustion engine probably can also be much smaller, because you don't need a 300hp engine if you can spread the power demand over a much longer time. This compensates somewhat for the weight of the batteries.
3. Once this switch is made, it will be much easier to change fuel type. Just swap out the tank/combustion engine/generator, the latter of which will be a small module (see above).
4. Developing a totally new car costs a lot of money. I read somewhere that it costs around 1 bn dollar, (this is why most brands now use common platforms and common engines. The Saab 97 for instance is just a rebranded Subaru) That's quite a lot of dough. Now imagine developing a totally new drivetrain, as Toyota and Honda do. I am willing to foot part of that bill. It is technology that needs development.
It's simply the right thing to do (TM)
A small nitpick with your comment, and a mistake I see too many people make. Hybrids (for the most part, there are a few exceptions) get better fuel economy in the city than on the freeway. That does not, however, mean that their highway fuel economy is worse than that of a comparable normal car.
I drive a very efficient non-hybrid '01 Civic HX CVT. It is rated at 34/40mpg, and I routinely average about 38. But the Prius is larger, and is rated 51/60mpg, with real-world averages around 45. So yes, it gets "only" 51mpg compared to the 60mpg it gets in stop-and-go driving. But 51 still trashes the mileage my trusty civic HX manages.
And the real-world 45 is a good measure better than my real-world 38, as well. I suspect I would see slightly higher than that in a Prius, since it's so incredibly flat here and I'm a conservative driver. I get a *very* high average compared to the normal real-world/EPA dichotomy for my car.
At any rate-- my own calculations differ somewhat from what I've been reading. Assuming $2.20 gas and ignoring tax deductions and credits, a Prius would be ahead of my current car financially in just 5 years. Now, perhaps I keep cars longer than most people-- but that doesn't seem unreasonable. I have had this Civic for four years, and I intend to keep it several more. And we all know that gas is over $2.20 and that starting next year, Uncle Sam will give you $3000 for buying a Prius.
It almost NEVER makes financial sense to replace a functional existing car, unless your fuel economy is very, very low, or you are an extremely heavy driver.
I am familiar with the Escape hybrid; its hybrid drive is licensed from Toyota. Ford did not create it.
~CGameProgrammer( );
Which licenses its technology from Toyota.
Turbines have several advantages over piston engines: ...)
- less noise (almost none)
- much better efficiency (double IIRC)
- can burn anything (vegetable oil, natural gas, jet fuel
- less pollution (they burn better IIRC)
They also have issues that make it impractical for regular cars:
- must turn very fast to achieve the best efficiency
- short range of usable speeds
- high temperature (requires expensive materials)
Those issues (except the last one) are automagically solved when the turbine is connected to an alternator instead of a car transmission.
So why not just build a turbine-electric hybrid? The efficiency would be way above any existing car.
Yes, you wouldn't want to eat the battery from your hybrid. Nor would you want to eat the lead-acid one in your current car, let alone any of the other oh-so-healthy things found in a car.
But the batteries in the Prius are fully recycled, down to the case and wires, and Toyota will pay you $200 when you do so. Not to mention they're warranted for 8yrs/100k miles, and designed to last as long as the car itself. As of an article I read last summer, Toyota has not replaced a single Prius battery in the four years it had been on the market. So not only are they fully recycled, it shouldn't have to be done until the car is junked, well past 200k miles according to Toyota.
I think you missed his point. Did your trip take 30 hours? That's a LOT of damn idling, and I would be surprised (and impressed, and on the way to the Benz dealer) if they idle as well as a car that is literally off while idling.
I drive a Civic HX CVT, which is very efficient as it is-- but after peeking at the Prius, I don't think they're a fair comparison. The Prius was much larger, and the interior was better (though not by much) than what's in my Civic. I just have the standard cloth seats, though-- for all I know there are Civics with leather interiors, and that's what you're comparing to.
Plus, the Prius you were shopping had a GPS nav system and a very unnecessary stereo system. Drop that options package, and you're down three or four grand, if I remember right.
Starting next year, Uncle Sam will give you $3000 to buy a Prius, too. If you look at the $20K base model Prius, which is similar feature-wise to my civic (although larger), it's only $1500 more than my civic was in 2001 after the new tax credit. ($20K - $3K vs. $15.5K) By your math, which is admittedly generous, you'll make up the difference with gas in a year and a half. Call it three years to be more realistic, and you'd have a larger, roomier car at the same price if you keep it just three years.
Of course, I'll stick with the 38mpg civic-- the Prius would have to be staggeringly efficient to be a cost-effective replacement for a paid-for car. I'm driving this thing until I can't, and averaging 38mpg in a ULEV vehicle isn't too shabby, even compared to the current fuel-economy leaders.
My perfect car would be a diesel hybrid, hatchback or small WRX-ish wagon, CVT automatic, and at least ULEV emissions, with a built-in roof rack system designed as aerodynamically as possible (retracting into the roof would be extra-nice). AWD would be nice, but I'm only interested if we can manage it without a fuel economy penalty, say, by using an electric motor in the rear of the car to drive the rear wheels that could be left off when unneeeded.
A small 60mpg diesel coupled with a hybrid system would get us better mileage than that-- 80mpg? 90? The VW Lupo diesel manages ~80mpg, and its only novelty is that it turns the engine off at stops like a hybrid.
Extras: a humongous plug so I can use the hybrid system as a backup generator for my house in power failures-- the hybrid Silverado does this. An interior like the Honda Element that I can just hose out. I'm gonna get it muddy after mountain biking.
I'll pay the diesel premium and the hybrid premium and the AWD premium quite happily. But you have to get the whole thing right-- otherwise, I'm keeping my trusty civic HX.
Um... since when do people buy cars based on economic sensibility? I mean, sure -- some people do, but most buy based on what they like. Do people do studies to determine if any of the countless vanity vehicles make sense? How do you economically justify an SUV or a fancy european luxury car?
I own a Prius. I own it because I like it. When I got it the price of gas was $1.80, and it would have taken 10 years for me to make back the money saved if I had bought a Camry instead. Now, thanks to GW I may actually make it back in 5, but that's not the point and it never was.
I like the idea of the Prius. It represents research, it represents the desire to try and find a better way than just endless resource usage and pollution, it makes me feel better. A bunch of soppy new-age crap? Sure... but tell me you chose your car without considering how it made you feel and whether it matched your self image... and I'll say you're rather rare.
I guess it's just amazing that such a fringe vehicle has nearly become justifiable on purely economic terms, but that's just icing. The main reason to go Hybrid is because you believe in it.
Cheers.
I think the real reason diesels and their hybrid derivatives are lagging in this country is all the bad press the GM diesels got in the early '80s. The problem was the fact that GM did a half-ass conversion of a gasoline V-8 engine, which just wasn't up to the job of handling the high compression and stresses of a diesel engine. Consumers were expecting an engine with the durability of an engine designed as a diesel from the ground up, such as the Mercedes 240D or the engines in large trucks, which go up to a half-million miles between overhauls. Instead, they got a diesel engine which clattered like a diesel, smelled like a diesel, and accelerated like a diesel, but usually self-destructed well before 100,000 miles.
My Dad actually had 2 GM diesels as company cars. He was sort of a diesel car enthusiast, worked in the diesel engine business, and had previously owned a string of Mercedes Benz Diesels before getting the GM diesels in the early '80s. I learned to drive in one of them, a '74 Mercedes 240D. The 240D was one of the slowest cars you could buy in that era, with 0-60 times of about 20 seconds and a top speed just over 80 MPH, but it was pretty much dead reliable and was still going strong at 130,000 miles when he sold it. It also got about 26 miles a gallon when comparably sized American cars got about 16 mpg. The GM diesels, OTOH, did even better in the mileage department. I remember Dad saying that the big Delta 88 got 30 MPG on the highway, almost as good as my Plymouth Horizon at the time. Like the experience of many of the GM diesel owners, my Dad had major mechanical issues with both his '81 Delta 88 and '84 Riviera before they even reached 50,000 miles. There was great potential for the diesel engine in American cars, but GM's quality problems with its diesel engines sealed their fate.
My dad gave up on diesel cars, but he had a Cummins powered Dodge pickup 3 years before they were available to the public. He converted a '78 Dodge pickup to take a B-series 4 cylinder turbodiesel that had 10,000 hours on it as a prototype test engine in 1985. It was a brute to drive but it was tough as nails, and the engine outlasted the rest of the truck. In 1989 he gave that truck to my brother in law and brought a brand new 6 cylinder Cummins Dodge 3/4 ton pickup. It gets 22 MPG on the highway and he still has it 17 years later. Maybe I will inherit it one day.
The point is, the failure of the early GM diesels caused the domestic automakers to shy away from diesel engines in their passenger vehicles. Falling gas prices after their 1981 peak, rising expectations for performance, and electronic engine controls breathed improved performance and efficiency into the old gasoline engines. Until the recent run-up in fuel prices, Detroit has had little incentive to revisit the diesel engine in passenger cars and other light-duty vehicles.
OTOH, the Big 3 automakers have had good success selling diesel engines in their 3/4 ton and larger pickup trucks, vans, busses, and delivery vehicles that typically had gasoline engines a generation ago. These types of vehicles really suck down the gas in their gasoline versions, so the efficiency gains of the diesel engines are more compelling. The engines themselves in especially the first generation of 3/4 ton diesel pickups were built by companies respected for building quality diesel engines, and the truckmakers often advertised this fact. Cummins, Caterpillar, and International Harvester engines were under the hoods of Dodge and Ford trucks. GM took great pains to emphasise that its diesel engines were designed from the ground up as truck engines, and it took a long time for GM's truck diesels to shake the stigma that they were left with from their passenger car diesels.
Holy smokes, half of what you said was wrong!
Diesels run much leaner than gas engines.
Diesels idle much more efficiently than gas engines.
They do, however produce more particulate matter when cold or out of tune.
You do love your Prius.
Yep, half right, half wrong.
this is obvious bs. i have a (stanford) economics degree. "truth" basically: sometimes economic decisions are optimal, sometimes they aren't.
congratulations, you now have an econ degree
As a Toyota Prius hybrid owner, I did the math before buying. Turned out that gas would have to be $5.50/gal for over 4 years before I would turn a profit compared to a regular car with the same features (not including the current tax break).
BUT, I was a pharma rep for a couple years and I thought it would be a great statement to try and 'undo' some of the pollution I caused in that worthless job, driving around all day (approx 1000 miles/wk).
Then there is the geek factor. The car is geek. So deliciously geek. It can run completely quietly, which I refer to as "Ninja Mode" or "Stealth Mode". Everyone that has a Prius has a Ninja Mode story. Usually involving old ladies not paying attention in parking lots. Another nice thing is that I don't have to fill it up much. Actually, right now, I fill it up around once every 4 weeks.
And there's nothing more fun than pulling into a gas station, realizing that the guy next to you in the Hummer is about to hit $60 worth of gas, dropping only $2 on gas into the car, and driving off as it you've got a full tank. (of course, gas up down the road)
Worried about gas prices? Buy a used econobox. A 4-year-old Toyota Corolla can be had for $10,000, leaving you with $10,000 to spend on gas compared to buying a $20,000 Prius. Say gas is $4/gallon. That's 2,500 gallons you can buy. At 25 mpg that's 62,500 miles--and those are veeery conservative numbers. If gas is $3 a gallon and the Corolla gets 30 mpg (both closer to reality) that's 100,000 miles.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Of course if there were enough market demand for the green energy products it might drive further investment but if there isn't enough demand to use up all the current green production then there isn't a market incentive to produce more.
So check the products to ensure that your good intentions result in real improvement.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
They are slow and look like crap. Give me a V8 mustang or a vette anyday.
it's hard to do this accurately, because unless you are one of the planetary stonecutter bilderburger illuminated elite controllers, you sure as heck do NOT know what the price 0 fuel is going to be next year, or the year after, etc to the life of the car or your note, whichever comes first. The savings might not be there at a cost of x for the ride when gas is at 3$ gallon, but at 5 or 6$, which it could quite easily get to? How many more killer hurricanes will it take to sink in that we have a quite shaky and vulnerable fuel supply infrastructure? How may more middle eastern WHOOPSIES will it take??
And this also leaves out the large influence of after-market modding and adaptations you might be able to include in a year or whatever. Like for instance, already a lot of dudes are turning marginally performing priuses into true "plug in" hybrids, thereby opening up the "short commute" to being electric, using solar, or grid juice powered overnight, running on pure batteries for that 20 or 30 mile jaunt,with ZERO gas then, at much cheaper cost per mile than what they get now with the start and stop fuel engine. See how things can change quickly?
Basically, there are too many economic assumptions with trying to estimate *true* cost. At best you can guess based on todays prices. The price of the ride is exact, fuel....hmmmm... feeling LUCKY are ya lad?
With that said, well sure, the current crop of tiny diesels get better mileage, but still...having a modded hybrid that is true plug in plus be able to be used as an emergency generator makes it a lot more attractive for some situations. A lot of folks dig that "multi use" aspect that is possible with them.
To me, hybrids, and alternative energy in general, are a lot like the earlier computer years. They were more expensive than now, and what we have now is more powerful and faster, etc, but...wasn't it just SLICK to be an earlier adopter? Does anyone looking back really regret all their earlier more expensive computers? Didn't it payoff in the long run just 'doing it', both for yourself and for society in general? I have both computers and a solar rig, my ONLY regret is not getting into both those fields earlier, and that's it. I don't need a new ride yet, but when the time comes that is definetly the way I will go, because even if the iniial cost is higher over a 'straight' ride, you can do a lot more with one. I dig more features!
We are geeks! Sometimes we just do stuff because we know this or that is just plain cool and needs to happen! We are talking about bleeding edge tech, so???? Either we do it or it don't ever get done!
Cheaper and cleaner does not automatically follow from more fuel efficient. The tricks required to increase efficiency cost money. The technology that cleans often lowers efficiency.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Fuel is priced globally (most places, not everywherer, some nations are nationalized and subsidised), your bulk suppliers get it the same price we do, just UK taxes on fuel are higher,(if you are there, if not, disregard this) and they use that tax for other societal purposes. I know this doesn't mean much to anyones wallet, just the raw data is a nit picking point. It's not a market/money decision or situation in your case as much as a political decision ya'all have made collectively a long time ago.
I'd also say over the decades that we in the US probably pay a lot more for "fuel" than what most americans (or other folks really) think we do because of a 'stealth' cost, because we have had an inordinate *large* amount of tax money going to supply a military oversized enough to maintain a big presence in the middle east/mediterannean area, primarily because of securing oil supplies for the long term. They won't ever really say that out loud, but it's true. The reason for it I would guess is they were hip to the real numbers of proven reserves and where they were located, and long ago decided it was better to fully use up the foreign supplies FIRST before we completely tapped the domestic supplies out. A little mercenary, but so it goes with geopolitics and big business... If we add in that percentage that disappears with our federal taxes, the "fuel" prices we as joe citizens pay are probably closer to yours. Still not as high, but higher than displayed "pump" prices. How much I don't know but it's a factor to be sure when you consider the military budget over the past few decades is in the trillions of dollahs..
...I think the way to go is people start buying more B-segment automobiles in the Honda Fit/Toyota Yaris/Nissan Tiida (neé Versa) category, especially once we start seeing improved technology gasoline engines from 2006 on.
People forget that unlike the past, today's B-segment vehicles offer a surprising amount of interior space, are small enough on the outside for very easy street parking, are quite safe and offer excellent fuel efficiency without the expense of a hybrid drivetrain. Already, there is much consumer interest here in the USA for the vehicles I mentioned, all over which will arrive in the USA market by Summer 2006; I foresee these cars eventually getting improved gasoline engines with new features like direct fuel injection, lean-burn combustion, better valvetrain designs and better spark plug designs, which will improve fuel efficiency as much as 30 percent over today's gasoline engines without dealing with the problems of cleaning up diesel engine exhaust
It is my understanding that the VW TDI engine actually has reduced SOx and NOx and particulates when using a more highly refined diesel fuel (or biodiesel blend).
I am (impatiently) waiting for an auto OEM to produce a hybrid (serial) diesel/electric vehicle that can get 50 MPG city and 70 MPG highway (actual, NOT the EPA's bogus numbers). Unfortunately, much of the new focus is on H2-based vehicles instead, which is guaranteed to keep consumers chained to the multinational energy companies instead of the farmer down the road.
This is anecdotal rather than empirical data, but a co-worker claimed to get better than 100 MPG on the highway when driving between Metro DC and Baltimore on I-95. The traffic on this road typically averages 70 MPH, so I could not understand how he could achieve such stellar mileage -- until he told me that he routinely drafts directly behind tractor trailers.
YMMV, especially depending upon your nerve and driving skills. IMHO, that's just too dangerous.
I was actually looking for the small writing on the site saying "this site is a parody and should not be taken seriously". I'll give him that the engine might run longer, but getting insane milage out of it seems a bit of stretch. Why is he limiting this milage to just his hybrid? Why not a normal vehicle. He should be able to buy an old Volvo 240 for cheap and do the engine. ...Though I guess if you froze your penis you could go all night long. ;-)
-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
13 gallon tank of gas at $3/gallon lets say.
That's $39/600 miles, or $0.065/mile. If you had a gasoline car, you'd probably get more like 400 miles per tank (that's at 31mpg, the rated value, your rated is 46mpg and you say you get that), or $0.0975/mile.
So, that means that you save 3.2 cents per mile.
The premium you pay to get that Diesel engine is $1600. So, after a mere 50,000 miles you'll break even, if maintenance costs aren't higher (which they are, a bit).
Of course, in California, Diesel currently costs $3.50 (versus about $3 for gas), so it'd cost you $45.50/600 miles, or 0.0758 cents per mile, thus saving you a whopping one cent per mile, and taking 160,000 miles to get your money back, assuming maintenance and repairs don't wipe you out completely.
Does Diesel cost more than regular gas in your state too?
And meanwhile, you're dumping more pollutants (especially particulates) in our air. Pardon me if I don't jump for joy.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Tall, wide tires. Cars are much bigger. Engines are much more powerful. And cars have many more safety features on there. Safety features add weight.
And just so you know, plastic weighs more than metal much of the time. For example, the plastic panels on Saturns add significant weight. Basically plastic just isn't as strong under much except impact, so it adds a lot of weight when you make it thick enough to have the characteristics you need.
Think of it this way, look at a race car. Weight matters a lot on race cars. Do race cars have a lot of plastic on them? Even in places where strength doesn't matter (like inside), metal is used in preference to plastic, fiberglass in preference to metal and carbon fiber in preference to fiberglass.
And for those who are skeptical about the 60mpg, Canadian gallons are 25% larger than American ones. So that's 48mpg US, not odd for that car. The Geo Metro XFi got 55mpg US (highway), or 69mpg Imperial (Canadian).
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Knowing that in about 10 years, let's assume, the expensive battery on the Prius is going to need to be replaced, it's my feeling that the used market for this form of hybrid is going to have a near-zero dollar value. You may even have to pay people to dispose of the things properly. Who wants a car that if working, would have a used value of $2-$3k, but needs a $2-$3k battery to be replaced?
I'm sure the carmakers have thought of this. For example, if the battery does die and you don't replace it, will the gas engine simply stay running and it will just get worse mileage? Battery costs may well go way down in ten years, as well. This just stays on the back of my mind about hybrids. I would love to have a used one in five or ten years, especially if this problem were solved. And this is the market that'll really get the mass penetration imo...
Posted by yintercept - "...science...[is] the study of the 'divine creation.' "
And, infact, Ford could only license Toyota's old, first generation hybrid system... Toyota wasn't willing to give them the newer version that's 30% more efficient (why would they?).
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
Reporters just don't "get it".
I bought my Prius because it's simply the most advanced mass-production car on the planet. There's nothing else that even comes close to the efficiency of the hybrid drive system, or the sheer elegance of the hybrid integration - to say nothing of the additional features that Toyota threw into their technology showcase vehicle... Sure I knew it would save me gas, but that wasn't my prime concern - I can afford gas no matter what the price.
I could afford to buy anything in the Prius price range, so there was no extra "hybrid cost" any more than there would be an extra "BMW cost" if I decided to pay $5 grand more buy a BMW.
But now that I have the car, it's easily saving me more money on gas than I would've managed had I bought another non-hybrid vehicle. And I'm still supremely happy with my purchase. I'd buy another one in a heartbeat.
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
I looked it up. Your car makes 220HP (umodded) from a 2L engine. Of course, that's really PS (Metric HP), so it's actually 218.5HP.
And your car does (highway) 7.6 liters/100km. 7.6 liters/100km is 30 mpg (US gallons). Your car would get 37.5mpg in Imperial gallons, since they are 25% larger. Neither is close to 50mpg.
Whereas the Ford, with a 4.6L engine (not 4) makes 300HP (unmodded), and 25mpg highway (US gallons).
Making 130HP/liter through turbo/supercharging requires significantly lowering the compression ratio in an engine. Which hurts gas mileage axiomatically. You're simply not going to get 40mpg US (50 Imperial) with an engine with that much boost. Not unless it is a one seater with no safety features (very light).
Anyway, you really should get a handle on comparative mileage before you go spouting off about fundamental problems.
Honestly, it sounds a lot to me like you have a chip on your shoulder about "low-tech" engines. Low-tech doesn't necessarily mean inefficient. Look at the Corvette making 400HP rated at 19/28 (US, which would be 24/35 Imperial) from an engine smaller in volume and weight than the fancy engine in a BMW M5 (the V8 and surely the new V10). Look at the C6 Z06 making 505HP rated at 16/26 (US, 20/32 Imperial) from an engine that is still smaller in volume and weight than the fancy engine in a BMW M5 (the V8 and surely the new 500HP V10). The 400HP BMW M5, btw, is rated at 16/21 (US, 20/26 Imperial). FIAT's (Ferrari's) 360 Modena making 400 HP is rated at a whopping 11/16 US (14/20 Imperial). To their credit, the new Ferrari F430 making 490HP seems to still makes 11/16 US, but the Corvette C6 Z06 still makes slightly more power and 50% better mpg from a "low-tech" engine.
I do agree economy isn't much of a goal here in the US, but the actual mileage numbers aren't as bad as you make it out to be. And the performance/economy ratio you speak of is fairly good too, especially considering how much less we pay for gas and thus how much less sensitive we are to the costs.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
What you describe is a serial hybrid. One of the first serial
hybrids was presented at the Paris Expo in 1900.
The Lohner-Porsche Electric Car also featered wheel hub motors.
Hybrids are cool and all, because they drive innovation and new ways of thinking, but the way to immediately and permanently reduce our reliance on petrochemicals is ethanol.
Hell, an ethanol hybrid car would be fantastic.
Point 1. It's environmentally neutral, sure CO2 is released into the atmosphere but it's the same amount that would have been as the plants it's made from decomposed.
Point 2. It works in current cars. Minimal modifications would be necessary for standard gasoline engines to run off of ethanol.
Point 3. Ethanol is cheap. In large scale production it would cost somewhere around a dollar (US) per gallon.
Point 4. Ethanol can be made from everything from sugar cane and corn to sawdust. It can be made just about everywhere on earth.
Point 5. It's being used on a large scale right now. 20 years ago Brazil started pushing ethanol and they decreased their dependence on foreign oil from 60% to somewhere around 10-15% now.
Instead of pumping our bodies full of high fructose corn syrup, we should be using it to power our automobiles.
The big drawback to ethanol is that it requires higher temps to burn than does gasoline, so in cold climates cars would still need to burn gasoline to get up to the proper temp to switch to ethanol. This is the same problem that we have with bio-diesel and we've learned how to work around it.
I'm anonymous on this because I know I'll draw the ire of mods with political axes to grind so let me say this. I'm not an echo-whacko. I'm a right wing Republican. I voted for Bush, twice. It's just that it's so clear that this is the right thing to do that I can't see any reason not to advocate it.
Not only will you save money on gas, you'll save money on the car itself.
For example, a Geo Metro can be had for about $1000 and gets 50MPG, and there are several Honda models that get over 40MPG. In chronological (and decreasing milage) order, they are the 88-91 CRX HF, 92-95 Civic VX (hatchback), and 96-2000(?) Civic HX (coupe).
The 96+ Civic HX, which is obviously the least uncomfortable of the bunch, can be found for ~$5000 -- a quarter of the cost of a new Civic Hybrid or Prius, but only slightly worse gas milage!
I'm sure there are other cars, such as Toyotas, Volkswagens, etc. that also get 40+ MPG, you just have to look for them.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
...I really do hope the US hits $6+ soon
Guys its for your own good, everyone else manages. Once the US is forced into alternative cars they will start to make more sense, the industry just needs that boost to get things like battery advances and incentives for hydrogen stations (if that's the best way) and charging places. If I was in the US right now I wouldn't even consider buying a car that couldn't at least plow through a bull. They need fuel prices to go through the roof so people will start changing the cars they buy.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
CVTs are kinda redundant if you are using electric motors. Conventional engines need transmissions because they don't have much torque at low speeds.
;).
But yeah diesel hybrid would be good. A hydrocarbon fuel cell electric car would be better, if they could actually come up with one
And a Civic is seriously overpriced compared to a Geo Metro or a go-cart. Why not compare apples-to-apples, such as a Prius to an Accord or Camry since you want to compare to a car (midsize) of similar interior space & comforts, right?
... OMFG the Prius is slightly roomier ... Continuing on, the prices come out to the same $26K MSRP +/- a few hundred. OMFG! Is this what overpriced really means?
Lessee, the equivalent Accord would be the 4-door sedan w/ nav with your voice activated NAV, ABS, 5 person seating, power everything, alarm, immobilizer, EBD, cruise, button covered steering wheel, air filtration, alloy wheels, 6 CD stereo system, similar engine specs (yes, the hybrid 1.5L is about equivalent to the 160HP gas).. blah blah blah with specs of nyah compared to the Prius with specs of nyah and
Now, let's compare to the similiar Camry and you find the Camry only very slightly roomier and a few K cheaper until you count the missing Nav and maybe some other options.
You previously named a 15K Civic, a watermelon to pineapple comparison. Well, no way it's the 4 door EX with Nav because that's $20+K. How about the bottom of the line DX sedan. The seating room is pretty close to the Prius, although it's missing 4" of rear legroom and 4 cu-ft of cargo space. Subtract NAV, premium audio, HID head lights, etc and I can see the $10K difference might be a bit much. But then I see you didn't like the cheap alacantara-like microfiber cloth upholstry used on many premium Bimmers, Subarus which are considered by many to be cheap vehicles. That's fine too, because you can get things in leather come 2006.
So now that we have this imaginary premium that somehow exists for Hybrids, but doesn't for SUVs, cars with bigger engines, and etc etc because V6+ German goodness and all that shininess of a Hummer somehow comes for free and you've already broken even without breaking the bank unlike the evil Hybrid?
For you real geeks, the Prius electronics hard-maintains charge levels between 40% to 80%. Pretty hard to kill a battery doing that.
Don't forget to add the reduced maintenance costs of hybrids because:
o some are Japanese cars
o they use their engines & brake pads a lot less
o the Prius does not have a timing belt so no replacement necessary
o lifetime no emissions tests in California
o 8 year/150K warranty on the hybrid battery (try to beat that with your regular car battery) for the Prius
o the Prius itself has been around since ~1997 with a few cabs already over 150K miles with no battery problems compared to how many million recalls for other cars?
o just oil change/tire rotation for the first 60->100K miles
Then there's the imaginary savings of having clean air so kids don't have asthma and growing up leaning on the health system a bit which is paid by OMFG my taxes. Of course it's arguable that the money would've went to Iraq anyways, b
Ford developed its own hybrid technology. When they discovered what they came up with was already patented by Toyota, they swapped some patents with Toyota and went on their merry way. Ford pays no money to Toyota.
Toyota btw, got some of Ford's patents on diesel engines.
At least coal-fired power stations don't release their emissions at street level in the middle of cities...
Imagine all those black-ice slicks and probable accidents created by H2 cars in a cold-weather area. I keep getting the feeling nobody really thought about this.
Actually, the Japanese make wonderful diesels.
On a recent trip to Germany, I had the chance to drive a Mazda 6 with a turbo-diesel. A trip from Hamburg to Stuttgart averaged an equivalent 38 MPG at speeds between 130 km/h and 170 km/hr (roughly 80 - 105mph). The car was quiet and the only time you really knew it was a diesel was at idle (and just barely).
It's beyond me why the US can't look past the GM diesel of the 80's and take a serious look at the new diesel technology.
As a country, we could make a substantial reduction in the amount of fuel we waste with large, gasoline powered vehicles by simply switching to diesel as Europe has done (60%+ of new vehicles in Germany are diesel-powered).
It would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name
People spend $12k+ to buy a SUV/V6/German/Hummer vehicle than a hybrid. SHOW me a hybrid that costs $12K more than a comparably sized/equipped non-hybrid. If you're going do a tiny econobox comparision of pineapples to bananas, don't even bother.
As a followup, your battery problem is mostly a design fubar by Honda. They didn't place limits on high, and especially how LOW, the battery charge can get in the early Insights. As anybody who has played with rechargeable batteries knows, running down the charge on batteries totally kills any longevity.
OTOH, getting 5+ years out of it is still good.
get even better MPG. But of the 3, which is the better ride?
If you're already going to pay for a nicely-sized/equipped Accord/Camry/3 series, the Hybrid is the same price for the same size/equipment.
Isn't it curious that CNN picked the honda accord as a comparison? Consider: a) The honda hybrid tech is not as good as toyota's b) The honda accord gets the worst gas mileage of all the honda hybrids. Then they suddenly generalise the calculation to all hybrids. Hmmm...
Let's do the same calculation for a Prius versus a Camry. Let's say the Prius averages 40mi/gal and the Camry 25mi/gal (I think I am being generous to the Camry here.) Let's take gas at $3 per gallon and 75 000 mi covered in 5 years. Do the math and the money saved comes out to $3 369.
Funny, I *always* wanted to believe that CNN was an objective news source.
I'm getting fed up with people telling me Linux is the new Windows and I can use it for EVERYTHING. :)
See subject.
In Boston, the fare currently covers only 1/4 of the cost of a subway ride. The other 3/4 comes from taxes that you pay whether you use the thing or not.
[ home ]
BTW, it's BRAKES.
Hybrid vehicles do most of their charging by taking the power slop (usually wasted to turn the alternator to charge a tiny battery) to charge the LARGE hybrid battery. Regenerative braking is just another incidental efficiency improvement, but only < 30% efficient (gas->combustion->expansion motion->generator->batteries' ability to soak up up charge) and NOT the main charging component. So you get plenty of charging going uphill, downhill, going flat, freeway driving.
Not only that but the smaller hybrid gasoline engine is inherently more efficient at freeway cruising because the power demands there is right within its powerband, unlike bigger engines.
Some hybrid designs (such as the Prius) even reroute that charging slop back into the electric motor (with even more help from the battery) to assist the gas engine, as needed like a turbocharger.
You know, a hybrid-car sized of the Fiat Grande Punte and SmartCar would get better than 50+MPG. It's all about size&weight, and the Prii batteries are only 70lbs total. That is LESS weight than pretty much all single, adult, average Americans' body.
Shame on you.
Piddly. The S2000 gets 240HP @ 20/25 in a I4 2.2L. That's 109HP/9MPG per liter NA in a two-seater with safety features.
o Ford 4.6L: 65HP/5.4MPG per liter
o Corvette V8 6L: 66HP/2.2MPG per liter
o C6 7L: 72HP/2.2MPG per liter
o BMW M5 V8 4.8L: 75HP/3.3MPG per liter
Looks like the Honda and the BMW ARE the most efficient and advanced engines listed.
(b) your battery requires replacement after being out of warranty
This has become a mantra in any discussion about hybrids, but it is a non-issue. When you buy a new car are you concerned about transmission replacement, engine replacement, or differential replacement, all of which have comparable or higher costs to battery replacement? In a Prius (or other hybrid) the engine is expected to last longer because it is never stressed; it runs in a narrow RMP range, and it shuts down when stopped. For supporting evidence, there have been no engine failures since the first Prius hit the road. Other components last longer also; actual experience shows that brakes last over 100,000 miles, because most braking is regenerative, recapturing energy in the battery.
Data so far indicate that hybrid batteries outlast most transmissions. As the Prius does not have a transmission*, this is a fair balance of costs. The battery in a Prius is warranteed for 100,000 miles (150,000 in Califormia). That's a full replacement, not prorated. Since the first Prius appeared in Japan in 1998 there have been no battery failures other than from physical damage. There are owners with over 200,000 miles on the original battery.
Even the cost of battery replacement is exaggerated. The current replacement cost is about $3,000 for a new battery, or $750 for one from a wreck. This is half the cost 3 years ago, and will likely continue to drop as the industry ramps up to manufacture batteries to meet the ever increasing demand.
The bottom line is that the total maintenance cost must be considered, not just the cost of maintenance of one component of the power train. The experience of hybrid owners to date is that total maintenance costs of a hybrid are substantially lower than conventional cars.
--------------
*The Prius electric motors and gas engine directly drive the wheels through a continuously engaged planetary gearset. Toyota calls it a PSD (Power Split Device). Thre is no shifting and thus nothing to break. There isn't even a reverse gear; to go backwards, the electric motor runs in reverse.
Whereas SUVs make sense for most people whom don't need it, and they get a "we all pay for it" tax subsidy because they qualify as industrial vehicles, and hence also banned on most minor roads due to weight? Why are they getting tax breaks/free gas/leeway?
You're paying for MUCH MUCH more SUVs subsidies out there than hybrids which phase out after 60K vehicles for each dealer.
You are blind and two-faced if you're being livid about hybrids.
I live in Belgium and drive a Renault Twingo. It has a 1.2 litre engine. My fuel consumption is less than a Prius. A Prius would cost about 2 and a half times more. Sorry Toyota, I just am not convinced. Which reminds me, what is with that ad for the Prius I saw the other day. You would think they are selling a bicycle. A Prius still pollutes. What LA should do is shoot anyone who drives in to town.
When calculating the environmental impact of a Prius, don't forget to include the fact that new cars use oil and power before the first time that they're even fired up. It takes gas to get the factory workers to work, to power the machinery it takes electric which is usually coal, it takes energy to get the designers' computers to work, it takes energy to get the designers to work...blah blah blah A used car has already made that impact, a new car is basically buying a NEW environmental disaster.
Another reason to buy a hybrid vehicle is that (I think) you can use the carpool-only lane in one. Great for those hugely-crowded highways.
Would it be possible to mod it so that you could take out the power directly from the alternator? If you take the power via the DC circuit you're losing power through the battery and the inverter.
It may be that the power out of the alternator isn't clean enough to pipe into your house without cleanup that would cost more than the inverter. (I'm not a power guy; I'm just curious.)
The IEEE Spectrum magasine also ran a story recently on hybrids.
They focused on so-called plug-in hybrids, the modified stock hybrids such as the Prius with larger batteries, allowing them to be run on electrical power alone for, say urban conditions. Here's a link.
--cros13
Fiberglass reinforced plastic.
That's what Saturn uses. And I spoke with one of the designers of the panels (he was my material's science professor when I was in school). He explained at length the advantages and disadvantages. FRP cannot even be used in large horizontal surfaces (hoods, trunk lids), because FRP has to be very thick to support its own weight over a span.
Go ahead and weigh a Saturn FRP panel versus a metal panel. Saturn never said it was lighter, and stories have been related many times in car mags (seemingly from Saturn engineers) about how the panels are heavier.
As to your generic "European companies have been using composite panels for a decade or two now" is just plain incorrect. They use FRP and other composites the same as American and Japanese manufacturers, no more and no less. Most body panels on European cars are steel. A few are aluminum (the hood on my 2000 Audi is Aluminum, V8 models with longer fenders also used Al for the fenders).
As to using steel for the implied strength, again, look at the inside of a race car. Look at the dashboard. It is only used to mount gauges and switches in. It is metal. Why not plastic? I has no structural or protective value.
Metal is lighter than plastic in most structural situations. Composites are beginning to take over though, and if you want to call those plastics fine, but the ones that are giving all the weight savings are not the ones in your car. (To return to the argument from the post above that why aren't our cars getting better mpg, they have more plastics in them)
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
The S2000 in outside North America (and in North America up until the 2003 model year) made 240HP from a 2 liter engine, for 120HP/liter. They later basically changed the crankshaft to increase the displacement to 2.2L. It didn't change the output, they basically traded displacement for revs. It also didn't change the external engine size or fuel efficiency.
Note that the S2000 also is rated at 20/26MPG (US). Thus the Corvette makes almost double the HP and about the same MPG (worse city, better highway).
Now, as to liters here.
Displacement is ONLY a measure of how much air an engine pumps in two revolutions of the crankshaft. THAT IS ALL. It does not measure engine size in any way.
For one example, the GM 6L 400HP V8 may have a displacement of 6L versus the BMW's 4.8L (I could have swore it was 5L!), but in dimensions, the GM engine is smaller. It is also much smaller in dip volume (the actual measure of the space the engine takes up). It also has a much lower center of gravity, since the BMW has all those valves and cams adding weight up top whereas the GM engine has half the valves, 1/4 the cams and moves the cam down low in the block. If you had watched the Grand Am race at Watkins' Glen last week they showed both engines side-by-side (both fit in a Grand Am Daytona Prototype car) and you could have compared visually for yourself. They also showed the Ford 4.6L (actually, probably the Cammer 5.0), which was about the size of the GM engine, and BTW, is the most fuel efficient of the three.
As an additional note, both the GM 6L and 7L engines I mentioned are the same size. Both use the same block and are thus the same size (minus the dry dump pump on the 7L) even though they don't pump the same amount of air per two revolutions.
To underscore again, displacement is almost completely useless when measuring engine size.
MPG/liter displacement is a doubly useless measure. Even MPG/dip volume (which the GM engine does far better on) is a pretty stupid measure.
The Honda gets much better power per liter displacement (and volume/weight also, BTW) because it spins at a lot higher RPM. If you spin faster, you pump more air in the same time and thus can add more fuel to burn with that air and make more power in the same time. But, as the 2.2L and 2.0L versions of the S2000 show, that doesn't make you necessarily larger, smaller, more fuel efficient or more powerful.
High revs is nice, because you basically use all your components as often as possible instead of adding more of them (which adds weight). Every engine manufacturer tries to rev as fast as they can, but sometimes you have to make tradeoffs on revs to get other things. In Honda's case, they traded revs for displacement on the 2.2L S2000 because of complaints about peaky power output and loud engine noise (due to high revs). Does that mean the 2.2L S2000 isn't high tech because it doesn't rev as high as it Honda knows how to rev?
In GM's case, they had to give up revs to go to a pushrod configuration. This pushrod configuration reduces weight, lowers the center of gravity and reduces internal friction (means better fuel efficiency and higher power output). It does necessitate increasing displacement (if you're going to pump slower, you have to pump more per spin), but as long as you can package that engine in a small, light package with good mpg, why do you care whether it pumps its air more often or in larger gulps?
You will notice I never compared the engines in question to the S2000 engine. The S2000 engine is an excellent engine. I believe it will be a truly historic engine (the 2.0L version). Although displacement is a poor measure of engine size, the S2000 engine is also small in dip volume, dimensions and weight too. Very impressive.
However, the engine/car is not any kind of paragon of fuel efficiency. It gets truly lousy mpg for its size, actually.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
...back to the power company during the day. It's not the same electrons. The cash is just as green. We do it at our school. Works like a dream.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Not a fair comparison. Someone who's looking at 27k isn't in the market for a Rio/Civic, they're looking at something more like an Accord or Camry. And the Prius compares fairly well with these cars in terms of performance, room, and comfort and convenience items. Four people can travel a LOT more comfortably in a Prius than they would in a Rio.
And people who mention the issue of gas/diesel vehicles getting almost as good as hybrids do have a point; it's definitely a step in the right direction. But dissing hybrids as a whole is a bad idea. The "energy-recapture" seen in regen braking can be applied to ANY kind of vehicle, and if it's one that already uses a great technology (say, diesel), hybrid tech will only make it better.
Imagine a Camry-sized diesel hybrid that reliably gets 80 mpg.
Nope i can confirm the early 90s Honda CRX with the high efficiency engine option got 50+ MPG. My 1995 Geo metro gets 50 MPG, no problem, and that only cost me $4000 and has run great for 120,000 miles without repair. The problem with hybrids is they aren't designed to be the most efficient. They are generally designed for performance with some efficiency improvement. But an economy car design like the metro or CRX could easily acheive 100+ MPG. Take the VW Lupo (available only in europe). Its just a TDI, no hybrid and it gets 78 MPG. Add Hybrid to that, and you'd have a *real* efficient car.
What about areas that use hydroelectrical power, like British Columbia?
Free means no restrictions, ironic the FSF's GPL forces restrictions, isn't it? What's your definition of free?
By coincidence, tonight's NBC news ran a story about surge in US buying of small cars. With gas prices hovering at $3/gal, dealerships can't keep Honda Civics (the regular gas ones, not even the hybrids) in stock. One dealer had 9 on his lot that were all sold and he had pre-sold most of his next shipment.
Of course manufacturers will adjust, but it takes time. If it is bad at $3/gal, what will it be like at $5/gal?
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
In fact, I suspect all of them now do.
I'm not entirely sure how much natural resources this saves, but it sure as hell makes less pollution.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I don't know why you can just assert things like that.
And if we're going to build more not-perfect power plants, the least we could do is make them nuclear.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Fuel Economy, Initial Price, Battery Replacement, the Environment, it's all irrelevant to this Californian. I expect to start a job with a 45 mile commute on freeways I know to have bad traffic, but which also have diamond "carpool" lanes that generally move quickly even during rush hours. Unfortunately, my unpredictable hours and lack of a co-worker nearby make carpooling unlikely. However, hybrid owners in California are now permitted to use the diamond lanes even when the driver is the car's sole occupant. Being able to use that lane will save me soooo much time, the hybrid would be a good deal if it cost me twice what they now charge.
Like Digital Freedoms? Then donate to EFF before they're gone.
Ok, first, let me say I don't have a vested interest either way... most days to work I "drive" a Ducati 748 which gets 40+mpg when I'm taking it easy and 30+ even when ridden hard on sport rides, has *amazing* accelleration and top speed (60mph in 1st, 90mph in 2nd, 120mph in 3rd and I've got 3 more gears so you do the math), and gets to take advantage of HOV lanes in CA (not to mention lane splitting when traffic is really bad). Admittially, isn't the most practical vehicle (only can carry two people or one person and a backpack worth of stuff), but as a commute vehicle is great, more fun then anything on four wheels and not to mention it's an Italian motorcyle and sexy as hell.
That said... 350ft/lbs of torque for the Prius? Are you smoking crack? Having driven a Prius (my boss has one) let me tell you that no way in hell does it have anything close to 100ft-lbs let alone 350ft-lbs of usable torque. Honestly, I've never seen the powercurve of a Prius (Toyota apparently doesn't think people who buy hybrids care too much about performance), but I can tell you it's got nothing on a BMW 330 (my other vehicle) let alone a Porsche. According to Edmunds.com, max torque is actually 82 ft-lbs @ 4200rpm and 0-60 times are 10+ seconds... nothing to write home about for a vehicle weighing nearly 3000lbs.
Frankly, I find it really amusing watching people argue over performance numbers for vehicles designed for efficiency rather then performance. If you want a sports car, then get a sports car. If you want to help the environment, then by all means get whatever floats your boat (bio-disel, CNC, solar, electric, hybrid, whatever). But don't delude yourself into thinking that your econobox is some kind of performance monster that has specs or the performance of a Porsche.
You help the environment and your pocketbook substantially more by buying proper insulation for your house, among other numerous examples.
The difference - you don't get to drive insulation around, show it off to your friends, and brag about how earth-concious of a person you are.
At this point in time, you put more into a hybrid than you get back out at the other end. This will probably change in the future, but it is the reality now.
I *tried* to do the right thing and buy a Prius. My 15-year-old, 264,000-mile 1989 Honda Accord Lxi hatchback was dying last September and gave out in October. But the estimate was a two-year wait for the Prius.
I couldn't find a way to live my life walking 'til then.
great way to safe on energy costs: ... ... example: i can go from 0 to ... ... maybe to many lies?
buy a small car. anything beyond 1.5 liters for a
modern car is luxury.
watch for good aerodynamics. the wind resistance / friction
goes up with the third power, not square!
buy gasoline engines with a high compression ratio,
say beyond 1:10. newer cars can drive on lo quality
(speak: octane) gasoline without knocking and have
high compression ratios
don't buy a manual clutched transmission and don't buy
a regular automatic transmission. look out for
CVTs. this is a new technology. check out CVT on the
bosch website
80 km/h without the engines ever exceeding 2000 rpms!
innovative car manufacturers are batteling lethargic
customers. if there were a super cheap car that could
be "fueled" with leaves and branches they'd buy it, even if it
would have horrible emissions
the world lives in a "ME-NOW" mentality -or-
"it doesn't matter what happens when i'm gone"
mentality
I live in LA and lived in LA in the 70's and 80's. The new cat converters, smog pumps, etc have REALLY cut back on smog. Its still a problem but not NEARLY as bad. And our population has gone up since... GSG
And who knows how much better they really are for the environment when you factor in the effects of the chemicals in the batteries which have to be replaced every so many years and all the extra costs associated with their production. Money wasted is money that could've been used for something more efficient in helping the environment. But there's really no reason to expect much from them. Hybrids weren't the idea of anybody with any qualifications in science or engineering. They came about because a bunch of well meaning do-gooders with law degrees who got voted into state office in California decided they'd force car makers to do so. Nobody in their right minds would waste their time with hybrids otherwise. They are a lot of effort and money for very little improvement or what can be done with existing technology.
My Jetta TDI gets 50 MPG. In theory, it can run on biodiesel, too.
I think the total consumption of resouces is the same between Diesel and CNG, but CNG is cheaper by way of pollution credits.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
My 1980 Chevette Diesel got 50-54 mpg and ran fine right up to 130,000 miles when it was unfortunately totalled in an accident.
I really wish more diesels were available in this country.
The actual reason there are few diesels in the U.S. is due to our strict environmental controls; they are lax for trucks but strict for cars, so there were no diesel cars here for a long time until VW's new TDi.
I'm not sure that the lack of diesels in the US is due to emissions standards. As you point out later in your post, there are a lot of diesel cars in Europe, and there are a lot of environmental restrictions (ie, Kyoto). It's not just VW, but also DaimlerChrysler, BMW, Opel/Vauxhall (the European brand of General Motors), Ford, heck even Volvo have clean (I ride my bike behind them all the time), fast-off-the-mark diesels. All of these companies are in the US, and most of the models I'm thinking of have US equivlents.
No, there's more to lack of diesels in the US -- and lack of diesel/electric hybrid research -- than just Fed EPA regulations. Yes, I'm suggesting a conspiracy... but it's far from baseless.
Relatively speaking?
I mean, it's a powered bike, if a two-ton vehicle (4000 lbs) can get 20-25 mpg, which a cursory scan of the 'dem internets validated, and a smaller bike can weigh only 500, why don't they get 160 mpg? Is it all air resistance? No bike owner has been able to answer that.
Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
It is emissions; that isn't a guess of mine or anything. VW's TDi isn't very clean but it's clean enough that it does fall within our new guidelines, unlike any previous diesel. However it does not conform to California's more strict environmental guidelines. Only a small percentage of total sales from a VW dealer can be TDis, so dealers carry very few if any of the car. And if the car was bought out-of-state, it can't be registered in CA until it has at least 7500 miles.
~CGameProgrammer( );
The Prius's CVT is ... not exactly a CVT. It is a planetary gear system. The center (sun) gear is driven by an electric motor; the "planet" gears are driven by the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE); the outer gear is connected to the drive shaft and a second electric motor. There are no belts or pulleys. There is no mechanism for changing which gear teeth mesh with which other gear teeth. In short, there are no moving parts ... or rather, there are moving parts, but the moving parts don't move with respect to each other. Because the gear configuration doesn't change, there is no need for synchromesh. Nothing will wear out due to a poorly executed gear shift, because the gears can't shift.
... an Electrically Controlled CVT. By varying the speed of the electric motor connected to the "sun" gear, you change the ratio of the ICE speed and wheel speed ... what we normally think of as the gear ratio. The EC-CVT is the combination of electric motors and the planetary gear system, power electronics (thyristors) and a computer.
... how complex and costly-to-maintain is the Prius's CVT? I'd claim not very. The planetary gear system just needs lubricant. The electric motors are brushless motors (they use a permanent magnet rotor), so again should just need lubricant. The power electronics is all solid-state. [HVDC power transmission has for many years used thyristors for switching around 230kV at currents of around 100kA or so. The voltages, currents (and thyristors) in a car are all much, much smaller.] The computer is probably the weakest link in the whole EC-CVT system!
... and to smoothly transition from that stop. The EC-CVT just reduces the "gear" ratio to zero.
So, how can it be a CVT? Well, it's not. It is just a planetary gear system.
But the Prius doesn't boast having a CVT. It boasts an EC-CVT
So
Compared to a transmission, which changes which gears physically mesh with other gears, and needs to change the gears without stripping the teeth, the EC-CVT may be physically simpler. The conventional transmission needs a slip-clutch or torque converter to allow the engine to spin when the vehicle is stopped
On the other hand, understanding how the power transfer occurs in the EC-CVT, along with the power-electronics, probably requires a university degree in electrical and/or mechanical engineering, where as it is pretty easy to visualize how a different sized gears meshing together would change the gear ratio. In this respect, the EC-CVT is much more complex than a standard transmission. But in terms of mechanical reliability, the EC-CVT may be simplier.
Is there any source of a good, reliable Total Cost of Ownership calculator for cars based on historical data? All these reviews are nice, but I want to go out and buy the car that in the past 5 years has cost the owner the least (gas, maintenance, insurance) relative to any other car on the road.
DataSquid.net, a little about me.
Starting a regular engine is a scary proposition. A starter motor is mechanically connected to the engine, and forces the engine to turn at maybe 500 rpm. Fuel is injected into the cylinders, and ignited, forcing the pistons down. The engine suddenly finds itself jumping from 500 rpm to 1500 rpm. The starter motor must immediately disengage from the engine. The engine block, initially quite cold, finds itself rapidly heating due to the fire inside it. Parts rapidly expand.
... but only a little fuel is required, since the engine is being spun by the electric motor. As more fuel is added, the ICE takes over responsibility for turning itself over, and eventually providing the power to turn the electric motor as well ... turning it into an electric generate which recharges the battery. It is complex ballet, but the result is significantly less stress on the engine components.
... to be used to pre-heat the engine block the next time it is started.
Starting the Prius's Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) is a more gentle operation. A hot water bottle injects the hot coolant into the block, preheating the engine block. The power is applied to the electric motor connected to the "sun" gear of the planetary gear system, which in turn causes the ICE engine connected to the planet gears to start turning. Once the ICE has been gently spun up to 1000 rpm, fuel is injected into the cylinders, and ignited
When the Prius's ICE shuts off, the hot engine coolant is shunted off and stored in the hot water bottle
True, the Prius's engine is more complex. But much of that complexity goes into prolonging the life of the engine.
even if a car burned NO gas, a car would still be wasteful. The production and disposal of a car alone is about twice as environmentally challanging as the use of a car. And thats excluding the other costs of roads, etc...
Why not convert to biodiesel Hybrids vehicles?
At least with Biodiesel you can, in a pinch, use just regular old canola oil from the corner grocery store (assume you did the engine mod to allow it canola and diesel which cost about $600 last time I checked).
If we really wanted to reduce pollution and really save the environment we need to do a couple of things:
Make it 100% illegal for the energy industry (gas, nuclear, coal, etc) to influence the government.
Right now the government is acting in the energy industry best interest - NOT the publics. But it is the energy industry that gives them tons of money. For proof just see how the government is spending $350 billion on war that only benefits the profits of the oil companies. What would happen if the government spent $350 billion on alternative energies and the infrastructure to support them?
You need to get off your collective geek ass's and shake the goverment into acting in the best interest of the people!
To put it simply, the advantage of hybrids isn't the fuel savings, it's the simple fact that they're a joy to drive.
No, I will not work for your startup
In theory nothing ;) My fiancee's 01 Beetle TDI has been running on 100% soy biodiesel for 20k miles now. Can't recommened it enough.
I was thinking that if I could find biodiesel from a source like the frying oil from a restaurant, then I could drive around while always smelling the delicious scent of fried chicken. I would probably gain too much weight, though.
It isn't that bad. True ethanol has less energy per gallon, compared to gasoline. However ethanol is higher octane than gasoline. If you are intelligent about taking advantage of this, you don't loose anything. SAAB has demonstrated a car that gets the same milage, and 50 more horsepower when running on E85, over regular gasoline.
I have also heard of bad conversion to E-85, where you burn just as much gasoline as you did before, even though your fuel is only 15% gasoline. However if you are intelligent about the conversion you won't have this problem.
Most people do see a small drop in fuel efficiency when going from E-85 to gasoline (In OEM flex fuel cars). However it is less than the loss you would expect by mathematically calculating based on less energy.
AFAIK all Toyotas version 2 (2003 model prius and up) system is also PZEV. It would also appear they have a Camry that is rated as PZEV.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.