fuel economy in car commercials

In article >,
"Magnulus" > wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" > wrote in message
...
>> In Atlanta, for example, autos older than 24 years are exempt from
>> inspections. And if your car fails, all you have to do is show you
spent
>> around $700 trying to fix it and you'll get your sticker.
>
> That's because the cars are probably considered vintage- it makes a
>grandfathered loophole so people can drive around classic cars.


Come on, a 1978 Chevy Caprice?

> Many of
>the high-polluting "older" cars will actually be less than 20 years old,
>though.
>
>

In article >,
"Magnulus" > wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" > wrote in message
...
>> Then why hasn't anybody done so? Everybody's jumping on the hybrid
>> bandwagon -- Toyota, Honda, Ford, and others coming.
>
> If you notice, they are mostly making hybrid SUV's.


Ford and Toyota. Honda isn't -- Civics and Accords.

> This is an easy way
>for them to meet their CAFE requirements- in many cases they are paying
>penalties for having vehicles not meeting CAFE standards.

Not really, since even the smallest, car-based SUVs get classified as
trucks, even things like the PT Cruiser, and trucks have a CAFE 7 mpg lower
than cars.


> It does nothing
>for overall fuel economy. If they cared about fuel efficiency, they would
>be pushing small cars.
>
> There are off the shelf technologies that could make more efficient
cars,
>and cars do use them, but there are few cars that put them all together.
>Many Japanese engines already have variable valve timing- for instance
Honda
>or Toyota engines.


Also BMW, Mercedes, Saab, etc. But Detroit, and especially GM, sticks with
1960s-era technology -- pushrod OHV engines.

> A few also are lean burn (Civic, Insight).

Lean burn doesn't work so well with the fuel we have in the US -- BMW's
engines are set to burn much leaner in Europe than in the US.

> The
>integrated starter motor is used in several European cars and also is the
>basis for the Honda IMA hybrid system (it's actually more of an "advanced"
>starter motor generator, with generative braking capability). VW/Audi
also
>has a highly efficient direct shift gearbox, which is essentially a
computer
>controlled manual transmission.

And similar SMG (sequential manual gearboxes) are used by Ferrari,
Lamborghini, Maserati, Toyota, BMW, Aston-Martin, etc. But some don't work
very well, from the reviews I've read.

>
> The bottom line is it will take higher fuel prices to motivate people
to
>change. You are starting to see that pressure with gas averaging over
2.12
>per gallon, but it will take higher prices to really push people. Only
by
>ending subsidies to the oil industry and forcing drivers pay the full
costs
>of using the roads will people make better choices. Of course, higher
gas
>taxes are politically hot water.
>
>
Exactly. But I'd rather pay a higher price and have some of it go to build
roads, fund health care, etc., than go to Exxon and Saudi Arabia.

In article >,
"Magnulus" > wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" > wrote in message
...
>> Depends on supply and demand. Hybrids are hot, which probably means
>> they'll hold their value a lot better too.
>>
>
> Maybe, but if stories keep going around about nightmares when replacing
>the batteries, who knows.
>

Since they're warranted for 8 years, I doubt this is a problem yet.

> I have heard of three cases in the last month of people having Prius
>models with batteries that finally fail. Toyota dealers in every case
try
>and push a new Prius, or tell the customers it will be a couple thousand
to
>replace it.


The warranty on the battery pack is 8 years, so this cannot be.

> Now, you can get a battery pack out of a wrecker for about 500
>dollars, but is this really the best strategy on the part of Toyota, the
>best way to build customer loyalty? To me, it just shows that Toyota has
>no real conccrete plans to deal with battery failure. Disposable cars
just
>are not going to work. Prius is going to have a bigger problem with it
too
>because the batteries can more deeply discharge, especially in highway
>driving (NiMH batteries like frequent recharging, not frequent draining).
>This won't happen as much with the Honda Civic Hybrid.
>
> If you have to replace those expensive batteries, it sort of eats into
all
>that money saved on fuel.
>
>
Nobody has had to pay to replace the batteries yet due to the warranty.

"Lloyd Parker" > wrote in message
...
> Then why hasn't anybody done so? Everybody's jumping on the hybrid
> bandwagon -- Toyota, Honda, Ford, and others coming.

If you notice, they are mostly making hybrid SUV's. This is an easy way
for them to meet their CAFE requirements- in many cases they are paying
penalties for having vehicles not meeting CAFE standards. It does nothing
for overall fuel economy. If they cared about fuel efficiency, they would
be pushing small cars.

There are off the shelf technologies that could make more efficient cars,
and cars do use them, but there are few cars that put them all together.
Many Japanese engines already have variable valve timing- for instance Honda
or Toyota engines. A few also are lean burn (Civic, Insight). The
integrated starter motor is used in several European cars and also is the
basis for the Honda IMA hybrid system (it's actually more of an "advanced"
starter motor generator, with generative braking capability). VW/Audi also
has a highly efficient direct shift gearbox, which is essentially a computer
controlled manual transmission.

The bottom line is it will take higher fuel prices to motivate people to
change. You are starting to see that pressure with gas averaging over 2.12
per gallon, but it will take higher prices to really push people. Only by
ending subsidies to the oil industry and forcing drivers pay the full costs
of using the roads will people make better choices. Of course, higher gas
taxes are politically hot water.

"Lloyd Parker" > wrote in message
...
> Depends on supply and demand. Hybrids are hot, which probably means
> they'll hold their value a lot better too.
>

Maybe, but if stories keep going around about nightmares when replacing
the batteries, who knows.

I have heard of three cases in the last month of people having Prius
models with batteries that finally fail. Toyota dealers in every case try
and push a new Prius, or tell the customers it will be a couple thousand to
replace it. Now, you can get a battery pack out of a wrecker for about 500
dollars, but is this really the best strategy on the part of Toyota, the
best way to build customer loyalty? To me, it just shows that Toyota has
no real conccrete plans to deal with battery failure. Disposable cars just
are not going to work. Prius is going to have a bigger problem with it too
because the batteries can more deeply discharge, especially in highway
driving (NiMH batteries like frequent recharging, not frequent draining).
This won't happen as much with the Honda Civic Hybrid.

If you have to replace those expensive batteries, it sort of eats into all
that money saved on fuel.

In article >,
Big Bill > wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Mar 05 10:37:54 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>> That's because the cars are probably considered vintage- it makes a
>>>grandfathered loophole so people can drive around classic cars.
>>
>>
>>Come on, a 1978 Chevy Caprice?
>
>The alternatives include not letting any of those vintage cars on the
>road, or having the government define "classic".
>Which is your preference?
>

No, the alternative is they must pass whatever emissions regs were in
effect in the year in which they were made, regardless of cost.

In article >,
Big Bill > wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Mar 05 10:43:25 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>> Maybe, but if stories keep going around about nightmares when
replacing
>>>the batteries, who knows.
>>>
>>
>>Since they're warranted for 8 years, I doubt this is a problem yet.
>
>On the traction battery (the 200+ volt one), yes.
>On the 12v battery, no.
>
But isn't it under the 3-year warranty?

In article >,
Magnulus > wrote:
>
> If you notice, they are mostly making hybrid SUV's. This is an easy way
>for them to meet their CAFE requirements- in many cases they are paying
>penalties for having vehicles not meeting CAFE standards. It does nothing
>for overall fuel economy. If they cared about fuel efficiency, they would
>be pushing small cars.

They care more about not going out of business by trying to sell
people what they don't want.

> There are off the shelf technologies that could make more efficient cars,
>and cars do use them, but there are few cars that put them all together.
>Many Japanese engines already have variable valve timing- for instance Honda
>or Toyota engines.

Not all Hondas have VVT, and it isn't appropriate for all engines.
Honda uses it for increasing power without sacrificing economy; your
average American driver won't see any difference in economy.

>starter motor generator, with generative braking capability). VW/Audi also
>has a highly efficient direct shift gearbox, which is essentially a computer
>controlled manual transmission.

Which I'm sure they've patented out the wazoo. And which is unlikely
to improve economy all that much.

> The bottom line is it will take higher fuel prices to motivate people to
>change.

The _real_ bottom line is that we've reached a point of diminishing returns,
where every improvement in economy means significant sacrifices in
size, power, and/or increased cost. And people like you were saying
people would change and move to more efficient cars when fuel prices
hit $2. They have; people haven't (though they've stopped moving to
less efficient cars).
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Thu, 24 Mar 05 10:37:54 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>> That's because the cars are probably considered vintage- it makes a
>>grandfathered loophole so people can drive around classic cars.
>
>
>Come on, a 1978 Chevy Caprice?

The alternatives include not letting any of those vintage cars on the
road, or having the government define "classic".
Which is your preference?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 24 Mar 05 10:43:25 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>> Maybe, but if stories keep going around about nightmares when replacing
>>the batteries, who knows.
>>
>
>Since they're warranted for 8 years, I doubt this is a problem yet.

On the traction battery (the 200+ volt one), yes.
On the 12v battery, no.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"