Project for the Next Generation of Vehicles

In article >,
Magnulus > wrote:
>
>"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
>> > I looked up Toyota Tercel and depending on the year it got upper 20's
>to
>> >lower 30's for gas mileage. Were you driving on a highway?
>>
>> Mixed driving, mostly highway.
>
> What model year was the car? Was the mileage on one trip, or averaged?
1991, DX model, 5-speed. That was a consistent average.
>
>> > I got 40 miles per gallon with the Honda Civic Hybrid with city
>driving.
>>
>> Hybrids get worse mileage on the highway.
>
> The Honda Civic hybrid gets about equal mileage, 48/47 (EPA numbers, which
>are usually higher than reality). With a manual transmission, it gets 46/51
>(better on the highway).

The EPA numbers for gasoline cars are actually in range of reality,
sometimes even low (though you have to consider the ~10% penalty for
oxygenated gas). For hybrids, as you've discovered, the numbers are
much too high.

In article >,
Magnulus > wrote:
>
>"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
>> Sure. Also a lower drag coefficient (note it's a half-inch shorter,
>> among other differences). And simple lack of power -- 93hp compared to
>> 127 hp.
>
> But the electric motor has more torque than a gas engine.

It has a lower torque peak, but not "more torque".

> Some of the Honda Civics have faster acceleration, but 12 seconds is about
>equal to many other smaller cars (Toyota Corolla is about equal to that).

So what? Apples to apples, remember?

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>
>Looks to me like when you add the cost of the $6,000 replacement
>battery to the already higher cost of the vehicle itself, you still
>come out ahead with the conventional engine even after 250,000 miles.

And that's even after all the incentives. But Magnulus has drunk the
environmentalist kool-aid, and there's nothing that can be done to
neutralize that poison.

"Olaf Gustafson" > wrote in message
...
>
> SUVs may be outselling small cars, but small cars do indeed still
> sell.

They have lots of hybrid SUV's comming out in the next few years. But I
jus hate SUV's. I hate the mentality behind them, and I have no need for
them. I wouldn't feel especially safe in one, either. It's scary enough
just to feel the body rolling in a Ford Ranger pickup going around a corner
at 25 mph. Soft, high, bouncy suspension doesn't really give me a warm,
fuzzy feeling.

>
> You may end up hauling the whole damn little league team, but everyone
> doesn't. I sure as hell don't.

Yup. Not all of us have a cadre of sprogs and beasties.

> I doubt you "need" to, but if you want to, there are other methods.
> When I bought my last TV, I wasn't about to wait 3 days for the store
> to deliver it for me so I called up someone with a truck.

Or you can just own a truck, and save the truck for times you need it.

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> So far, all they've come up with is hybrids that don't get out of their
own
> road and won't carry a 4' X 8' foot sheet of plywood or drywall and are
> pityfully small meaning they'll get creamed in a collision with almost any
> other vehicle.

I have no need to carry plywood or drywall, and I doubt most Americans do
either. If I got into that sort of thing, I would probably keep a truck
around just for that, but I'd still drive a car mostly.

>
> Well, we have to start doing something about the balance of trade.
Killing the
> American auto industry because they don't adopt a stopgap idea, and then
> letting the rest of the world sell us all their cars that aren't a dimes
bit
> better is not progress.

American cars suck for the most part. I don't see the point of feeding a
sucky industry if they won't build good products. And you know, many
Japanese cars are actually built in the US. Toyota and Honda have some of
the best resell values and good reputations for reliability- Ford really
doesn't.

There's nothing wrong with American auto workers. It's American auto
companies that need to get a clue. They won't spend real money on R&D and
implement it into products, but Japanese companies do.

> They likely don't want to be involved in too big a ****-storm when these
cars
> start needing new batteries and the owners find out that its going to cost
them
> $5000 or $10,000 or whatever to replace 'em.

240 NiMH D-cells = about 2,000 dollars. If they can't replace the
battery pack for around 2,500 dollars, there's some serious gouging going
on. Somebody with a battery pack out of warranty might be better off
going to a forklift repair and getting the batteries replaced than going to
a dealer. Fortunately, very few people with hybrid cars have had to replace
the batteries- mostly it's been heavy mileage driving.

>
> The thing that _is_ American is the EPA invented hydraulic hybrid drive.

Hydraulic drive will only work for larger trucks and SUV's, not cars. It
requires a large resevoir of nitrogen gas, and somewhere to put it. Still,
it would be great to implement on things like buses or big trucks, or even
tanks or APC's, which is why the Department of Defense is interested. Those
big busses get about 3 miles per gallon- they could use a little boost.

> Its
> patented by the EPA, so no big business is going to buy up the patent and
bury
> it (in case you subscribe to that sort of "They killed the 80 mpg
carburetor
> like that" BS). There's nothing to wear out and cost $5000 to replace

The mechanisms will wear out in time- there's no free lunch. Pumps and
other gizmos.

>
> The hydraulic hybrid at least has a chance because it makes sense. It
> conserves the energy that we have, without requiring that a whole new
> distribution system be sprung up out of the desert practically overnight.
> Hydrogen technology probably isn't going to make it, as much as I'd like
to see
> it. Where are you going to get the hydrogen?

They might be able to use gasoline as a source- if they were able to
convert it to hydrogen in an efficient manner, it might be more efficient
than using an internal combustion engine (which, I believe, loses a large
amount of the energy to heat). But that is debatable.

Once the US gets really clean, low-sulfur fuel, it will open up a host of
technologies like lean burn gasoline engines and turbodiesels. It's a pitty
that nobody in government is at the wheel on this issue. You can't just
fix one little thing, you have to fix the whole system- improved engine
efficiency, improved fuel, hybrid designs, and so on.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> Pity you can't just tape a bunch of cells together and just make your
> own.

Maybe you can... from the sounds of it, it's not that hard. Though I'm
not much of a mechanic type (sometimes I wish I knew more about it).

There are a bunch of Prius tinkerers out there. I read about one bunch
of Berkeley students who modified a Prius to run in "EV" mode (available
only in Europe as standard, but you can mod it in the US), and they also
installed a larger battery in the trunk. The result is they have a
"plug-in" hybrid car they can drive as an electric vehicle.

>
> Looks to me like when you add the cost of the $6,000 replacement
> battery to the already higher cost of the vehicle itself, you still
> come out ahead with the conventional engine even after 250,000 miles.

It's still the earlier adopter stage, this stuff will get cheaper to build
and operate. Most industry experts predict 80 percent of the market will
be hybrid cars by 2015.

"fbloogyudsr" > wrote in message
...
> Let's say he got 50mpg (that's probably excessively optimistic, since a
> Prius doesn't get that much on the highway and that the only way he
> could have wracked up that much mileage.) That means he bought
> 5,000 gallons of fuel. There are many cars out there that get 40mpg;
> a diesel Jetta, in fact, gets almost 50.

A MANUAL Jetta TDI (not everybody wants a manual- I certainly don't).
Diesel also uses more crude oil to make than gasoline, so it won't
necessarily decrease the dependence on oil. And if you live in NY or CA,
you might have a hard time getting that turbodiesel (air pollution).

>So, the Prius got about 25%
> better than that, saving around 1250 gallons. At $1.80 a gallon the
> Prius saved $2250. But a Prius cost much more than that to begin
> with; twice as much?

Jetta TDI costs about $22,000 (new), or about $17,000-19,000 for a good
used one. A Prius will cost about $22,000 new.

"Magnulus" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "fbloogyudsr" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Let's say he got 50mpg (that's probably excessively optimistic, since a
>> Prius doesn't get that much on the highway and that the only way he
>> could have wracked up that much mileage.) That means he bought
>> 5,000 gallons of fuel. There are many cars out there that get 40mpg;
>> a diesel Jetta, in fact, gets almost 50.
>
> A MANUAL Jetta TDI (not everybody wants a manual- I certainly don't).
> Diesel also uses more crude oil to make than gasoline, so it won't
> necessarily decrease the dependence on oil. And if you live in NY or CA,
> you might have a hard time getting that turbodiesel (air pollution).
>

There is a guy north of me who sells 55 gallon drums of biodiesel
made from reprosessed cooking oil for 1.67 per gallon.

Not much crude in that, and no expenxive batteries to buy.

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 00:55:00 -0500, "Magnulus" > wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
.. .
>> So far, all they've come up with is hybrids that don't get out of their
>own
>> road and won't carry a 4' X 8' foot sheet of plywood or drywall and are
>> pityfully small meaning they'll get creamed in a collision with almost any
>> other vehicle.
>
> I have no need to carry plywood or drywall, and I doubt most Americans do
>either. If I got into that sort of thing, I would probably keep a truck
>around just for that, but I'd still drive a car mostly.

Given a lot more money, I'd have a car and either a truck or a larger SUV. But
I don't, so I have an SUV that can carry the building materials. I live 20
miles out in the country. I get to haul all sorts of things back from Home
Depot and Lowes. Wheelbarrows, lumber, etc. They all go _on top_ of the Jeep,
and would go inside some larger SUVs.

>> Well, we have to start doing something about the balance of trade.
>Killing the
>> American auto industry because they don't adopt a stopgap idea, and then
>> letting the rest of the world sell us all their cars that aren't a dimes
>bit
>> better is not progress.
>
> American cars suck for the most part. I don't see the point of feeding a
>sucky industry if they won't build good products. And you know, many
>Japanese cars are actually built in the US. Toyota and Honda have some of
>the best resell values and good reputations for reliability- Ford really
>doesn't.

I like my Jeep a lot, and the American cars I rent when I'm traveling are
pretty good. My only concern is the American car _companies_ doing the right
thing when there's a problem. I've had real good luck with Mitsubishi when I
had problems with the Eclipse, but back in the 80s, when I had some Dodge
Omnis, I didn't think a lot of some of the problem resolutions I experienced at
the time.

> There's nothing wrong with American auto workers. It's American auto
>companies that need to get a clue. They won't spend real money on R&D and
>implement it into products, but Japanese companies do.

American companies have a short term outlook, for sure. That needs to change.

>> They likely don't want to be involved in too big a ****-storm when these
>cars
>> start needing new batteries and the owners find out that its going to cost
>them
>> $5000 or $10,000 or whatever to replace 'em.
>
> 240 NiMH D-cells = about 2,000 dollars. If they can't replace the
>battery pack for around 2,500 dollars, there's some serious gouging going
>on. Somebody with a battery pack out of warranty might be better off
>going to a forklift repair and getting the batteries replaced than going to
>a dealer. Fortunately, very few people with hybrid cars have had to replace
>the batteries- mostly it's been heavy mileage driving.

If indeed the batteries are available from aftermarket sources, instead of a
special battery pack from the auto manufacturer, that'd go a long way toward
making them less scary. A $2000 battery purchased from an auto dealer would
probably be like a $30 battery for a camera being purchased from the camera
manufacturer - my $29 aftermarket camera battery replaces a factory battery
that costs $99.

>> The thing that _is_ American is the EPA invented hydraulic hybrid drive.
>
> Hydraulic drive will only work for larger trucks and SUV's, not cars.

That's not what I've read. They expect to put it in cars, too. SUV's first,
then cars.

>It
>requires a large resevoir of nitrogen gas, and somewhere to put it.

It'll require a smaller reservoir of gas to move a smaller car. Batteries
require a lot of space too, and they get them into the cars anyway. The
nitrogen gas requirement might bring back real frames on cars, made out of
tubing - who knows. But a tubing-framed car would also make a violent
explosion of 7000 psi nitrogen impossible, as the restrictions of gas moving
thru the tubing rapidly enough to make it possible would be controllable with
smaller-diameter restrictors placed in the tubes that would allow the gas to
pass from tube to tube without being a problem for the less-rapid use of the
nitrogen for its intended purpose. Plus, there's a lot of wasted space in the
cars now, like inside the doors, etc, where tubing or tankage could reside.

I think the hybrid hydraulic drive will find its way into most vehicles,
eventually. Sooner would be a good thing.

>Sill,
>it would be great to implement on things like buses or big trucks, or even
>tanks or APC's, which is why the Department of Defense is interested. Those
>big busses get about 3 miles per gallon- they could use a little boost.

Oh, yeah - and put 'em on the big rig's _trailers_ and negate a lot of brake
wear, plus make the truck able to actually accelerate, plus get a lot better
mileage. I'd like to see 'em on railway cars, with the same benefits.
>
>> Its
>> patented by the EPA, so no big business is going to buy up the patent and
>bury
>> it (in case you subscribe to that sort of "They killed the 80 mpg
>carburetor
>> like that" BS). There's nothing to wear out and cost $5000 to replace
>
> The mechanisms will wear out in time- there's no free lunch. Pumps and
>other gizmos.

Yeah, but they'll be realatively cheap, compared to a battery pack. We've been
doing hydraulics for decades - the technology is a known quantity.


>> The hydraulic hybrid at least has a chance because it makes sense. It
>> conserves the energy that we have, without requiring that a whole new
>> distribution system be sprung up out of the desert practically overnight.
>> Hydrogen technology probably isn't going to make it, as much as I'd like
>to see
>> it. Where are you going to get the hydrogen?
>
> They might be able to use gasoline as a source- if they were able to
>convert it to hydrogen in an efficient manner, it might be more efficient
>than using an internal combustion engine (which, I believe, loses a large
>amount of the energy to heat). But that is debatable.

Yeah, but we still have to import that from that area of the world with all the
political radicals and instability. We need a source we can exploit _here_.
Using petroleum to make our fuel isn't the sort of advancement we need.

> Once the US gets really clean, low-sulfur fuel, it will open up a host of
>technologies like lean burn gasoline engines and turbodiesels. It's a pitty
>that nobody in government is at the wheel on this issue. You can't just
>fix one little thing, you have to fix the whole system- improved engine
>efficiency, improved fuel, hybrid designs, and so on.

Right. Now, turbodiesel - that's an advance. You can get diesel fuel out of
growing things, taking CO2 _out_ of the atmosphere to do it, too. No
additional CO2 pollution, if you consider it that. I personally think that
global warming as a human-created problem is a fraud, but for those that
subscribed to it, bio-diesel addresses that problem.