A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Chrysler
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

IRS should cancel tax credits on gas guzzler "hybrids"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old July 19th 05, 04:37 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In alt.autos.ford FanJet > wrote:

> http://www.smartcar.com/


> why isn't this available in the US - Honda, Toyota, GM, Ford, Chrysler,
> Anyone?


It's here.
http://www.internetautoguide.com/auto-news/25-int/8693/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217861/

Daimler-Chrysler is selling them in Canada, and not the US.
Independent importers, led by ZAP, will sell them in the US.

High mileage conventional cars have been here before. My daughter has a
Chevy Metro, 3 cyl, 1100 cc, 5 speed. She gets 40+mpg overall,
but my Civic Hybrid has more power, more space, A/C, Power Steering and
Automatic.


--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

Ads
  #32  
Old July 19th 05, 04:48 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In alt.autos.ford FanJet > wrote:
> No doubt, the same increase in efficiency could be realized,
> and just as easily, from a gasoline engine only powered vehicle. Not as


Would that be the Honda Civic HX compared to the Honda Civic Hybrid?
E-VTEC engine, CVT transmission, lighter car.
HX 30/34mpg, 9/9 Emissions. Hybrid 47/48mpg, 9/10 Emissions.

Or would it be the Escape 4cyl verses Escape Hybrid?
Standard 4cyl-4wd-auto Pollution:6, 19/22mpg, Greenhouse:4
Hybrid 4cyl-4wd-auto Pollution:9.5, 33/29mpg, Greenhouse:8

There are manufacturers squeezing whatever they can out of conventional
engines, and they've done a remarkable job compared to cars 30 years ago.
Hybrid is the tool for today that's available to the masses. I think a
plug in hybrid is the next step.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

  #33  
Old July 19th 05, 05:45 PM
FanJet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
> In alt.autos.ford FanJet > wrote:
>
>>
http://www.smartcar.com/
>
>> why isn't this available in the US - Honda, Toyota, GM, Ford,
>> Chrysler, Anyone?

>
> It's here.
> http://www.internetautoguide.com/auto-news/25-int/8693/
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217861/
>
> Daimler-Chrysler is selling them in Canada, and not the US.
> Independent importers, led by ZAP, will sell them in the US.
>
> High mileage conventional cars have been here before. My daughter
> has a Chevy Metro, 3 cyl, 1100 cc, 5 speed. She gets 40+mpg overall,
> but my Civic Hybrid has more power, more space, A/C, Power Steering
> and Automatic.


The smart car is entirely different. At least the Canadian model. It has
very smart ABS, A/C, a decent heater and all the other things North American
users might want. Certainly not a Metro and, if you're hauling 2 people,
much better and cheaper than a Civic hybrid. BTW, there are plenty of Metros
around with PS, A/C and automatic transmissions.



  #35  
Old July 19th 05, 07:49 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In alt.autos.ford FanJet > wrote:
> wrote:


>> High mileage conventional cars have been here before. My daughter
>> has a Chevy Metro, 3 cyl, 1100 cc, 5 speed. She gets 40+mpg overall,
>> but my Civic Hybrid has more power, more space, A/C, Power Steering
>> and Automatic.


> The smart car is entirely different. At least the Canadian model. It has
> very smart ABS, A/C, a decent heater and all the other things North
> American users might want. Certainly not a Metro and, if you're hauling 2
> people, much better and cheaper than a Civic hybrid. BTW, there are
> plenty of Metros around with PS, A/C and automatic transmissions.


A Metro with A/C, P/S, and automatic transmission is not going to get
anywhere near the same mileage. For 1998, the 5 speed is 44/49, the
automatic is 30/34. No mention of A/C.

Granted, the smart car might be a nicer car than the Metro, and that
remains to be seen, but it is smaller still. Why is there no high mileage
Mini, instead of a Cooper-S model?

You think a Smartcar will be better than a Honda Civic Hybrid for hauling
two people? By some definitions, maybe, but I can't believe it will be
better overall. What about a Honda Insight? Higher mileage, two
passengers.

What is the smartcar mileage with two people? My Civic remains unchanged
with one or two people, and I'm not sure I notice with three.
Passenger miles per gallon might be important.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

  #36  
Old July 19th 05, 07:52 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In alt.autos.ford FanJet > wrote:
> this sort is one of the areas we pay the Federal government.
> Too bad they've been bought and paid for.


I won't be able to argue with FanJet anymore.
The fix is obviously in.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

  #37  
Old July 19th 05, 09:22 PM
FanJet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
> In alt.autos.ford FanJet > wrote:
>>
wrote:
>
>>> High mileage conventional cars have been here before. My daughter
>>> has a Chevy Metro, 3 cyl, 1100 cc, 5 speed. She gets 40+mpg
>>> overall, but my Civic Hybrid has more power, more space, A/C, Power
>>> Steering and Automatic.

>
>> The smart car is entirely different. At least the Canadian model. It
>> has very smart ABS, A/C, a decent heater and all the other things
>> North American users might want. Certainly not a Metro and, if
>> you're hauling 2 people, much better and cheaper than a Civic
>> hybrid. BTW, there are plenty of Metros around with PS, A/C and
>> automatic transmissions.

>
> A Metro with A/C, P/S, and automatic transmission is not going to get
> anywhere near the same mileage. For 1998, the 5 speed is 44/49, the
> automatic is 30/34. No mention of A/C.


The real Metro problem is that it, unlike your Honda, was designed to be
cheap not fuel efficient.

> Granted, the smart car might be a nicer car than the Metro, and that
> remains to be seen, but it is smaller still. Why is there no high
> mileage Mini, instead of a Cooper-S model?


That's like asking why there isn't a high mileage Miata. The Mini isn't
designed to be economical. It's designed to be a two seat, fun to drive,
convertible roadster. For me, they didn't succeed. Others seem to like it.

> You think a Smartcar will be better than a Honda Civic Hybrid for
> hauling two people? By some definitions, maybe, but I can't believe
> it will be better overall. What about a Honda Insight? Higher
> mileage, two passengers.


To each... but I'd be willing to purchase a Smart Car if I could.

> What is the smartcar mileage with two people? My Civic remains
> unchanged with one or two people, and I'm not sure I notice with
> three.
> Passenger miles per gallon might be important.


True and I haven't seen any figures like this for SC. OTH, your Civic
obviously uses more fuel as the load increases.


  #39  
Old July 20th 05, 01:41 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In alt.autos.ford Matt Whiting > wrote:
> But the energy to recharge the batteries still comes from gasoline. It
> takes gasoline to get to the top of the hill so that you can
> regeneratively charge the batteries on the way down. Yes, recapturing
> this energy that would otherwise be lost to heat via the brakes is a
> good thing, but it isn't a perpertual motion machine.


The energy spent to get the car to the top of the hill is spent to get the
car to the top of the hill, not to charge the batteries. Now that the feat
has been accomplished, if you want to get to the bottom of the hill, you
have to dissipate some energy. You might dissipate it as heat, or you
might put it into a battery.

Next time you go up a hill, some of the energy that you need can come
from the batteries, and some from gasoline.

It's not perpetual motion, but it's not all lost either.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

  #40  
Old July 21st 05, 11:15 AM
N8N
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



FanJet wrote:
> N8N wrote:
> > FanJet wrote:
> >> N8N wrote:
> >>> FanJet wrote:
> >>>> Jonathan Race wrote:
> >>>>> Many of the new generation hybrids aren't specifically designed to
> >>>>> increase fuel economy more than a few MPG but rather to reduce
> >>>>> emissions. Since the most emissions are generated in slow speed
> >>>>> stop-and-go driving, the use of an electric motor for that type of
> >>>>> movement reduces emissions on these vehicles to somewhere between
> >>>>> 1/2 and 1/3 of the amount a non-hybrid version of the same vehicle
> >>>>> produces.
> >>>>> Cheers - Jonathan
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> What a ripoff to we taxpayers who pay extra taxes so tax
> >>>>>> giveaways are given to rich people who buy expensive hybrids
> >>>>>> that actually guzzle more gasoline than regular cars you and I
> >>>>>> are destined to purchase! Write your Congressperson today and
> >>>>>> tell her/him just how you feel about getting the shaft without
> >>>>>> the benefit of K-Y Jelly. If a hybrid doesn't get at least 15%
> >>>>>> better gas economy, than it
> >>>>>> does with its battery removed, tax it double for extra damage it
> >>>>>> does to the economy and Nation by using a lot of
> >>>>>> contaminating elements in it's battery pak.
> >>>>
> >>>> Lemee see, there's only *one* source of energy for these vehicles.
> >>>> Anyone surprised at the real outcome? BTW, one doesn't run around
> >>>> town on electric power for long before the gasoline engine is
> >>>> needed to charge the batteries that are powering the electric
> >>>> motor. There ain't no free lunch.
> >>>
> >>> Well, if the hybrid uses regenerative braking, it's entirely
> >>> possible that it will get better economy in stop and go driving.
> >>>
> >>> nate
> >>
> >> How's that? To use regenerative braking, the car needs to be moving.
> >> Gasoline is required to get the car moving either from a gasoline
> >> charged battery or directly from the gasoline powered engine. There
> >> are considerable losses involved in converting gasoline to
> >> electricity and the reverse. If the manufacturers really are saving
> >> energy with Hybrids, they could do exactly the same thing with
> >> gasoline only powered vehicles. In fact, they should be able to do
> >> better since these vehicles wouldn't be carting extra batteries, a
> >> heavy electric motor and assorted control doodads around. I think
> >> Hybrids buyers are being had. On the other hand, they are probably
> >> funding some research that may prove useful in the future so it
> >> might not be all bad.

> >
> > It's real simple. In a gasoline powered car the energy used to
> > accelerate a vehicle to whatever speed it achieves is basically lost
> > forever, as when the vehicle coasts down or brakes the kinetic energy
> > is converted into heat. With regenerative braking, some of it
> > (theoretically all, but minus various losses and inefficiencies) gets
> > converted back into electricity and stored in the batteries. Not a
> > perfect system, but better efficiency-wise than a pure gasoline
> > engine. In fact, it's city driving where hybrids can really shine.
> > In steady state highway driving, it's a wash, with a slight advantage
> > to the pure gasmotor due to lighter weight.
> >
> > nate

>
> It's not really all that simple and that is the basis for my gripe with the
> manufacturers. For example, you ignore the inefficiencies involved with
> converting the DC derived from the batteries to the AC required by the
> electric motor. Then additional inefficiencies when the AC is converted to
> mechanical energy by the electric motor. These inefficiencies generate heat
> which is wasted.


This is true, but it's still better than nothing at all, which is the
other option.

> Then there's the viable possibility of using a less
> expensive version of regenerative braking on a gasoline engine only powered
> car. Equipped with an ECU controlled alternator clutch, regenerative braking
> could be used to charge the car's battery.


There's enough energy generated in one braking event that the battery
would be fully charged very quickly, you'd be back to regular friction
brakes almost instantly.

> Using relatively simple
> technology, heat from the brakes could be used to assist in heating the
> passenger space too.


Heating the passenger space is never a problem. The regular heater
uses waste heat from the engine.

> There are many possibilities and some far less
> expensive than those used by current hybrids. However you look at it, none
> are as simplistic, clean, or effective as the manufacturers would have us
> believe.


Regenerative braking is actually a darn good idea, even if it doesn't
appeal to my inner Luddite.

nate

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Credit Card Scam -- should I cancel my card?? Dan Chrysler 1 March 1st 05 05:25 AM
Credit where credit's due Scott Adams Saturn 0 January 28th 05 11:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.