Car Tech: Poll: Would you consider buying a hybrid or alternative-fuel car?
- 5/3/07 11:55 AM
Hybrid Owner-Driver Relativisistics
by Catgic - 5/5/07 5:04 AM In reply to: On our second hybrid. by R. Proffitt
Hi Bob --- Is it because you have been assimilated into the "Hybrid Hive" and now have special "relativistic" powers or simply because you have the inside track with my Uncle Al, that you were able to make your Bakatcha post to Lee at 5/2/07 6:29 PM, while Lee made his primary Car Tech Forum: Poll post at 5/3/07 11:55 AM on the following day?
I am disappointed to learn that you, your dealer and Honda have still been unable to resolve the "not-so-lean-burn" control software problem with your 2006 Civic Hybrid.
I have had my new 2007 Prius going on five months now. I keep a top-level driving log, and as I rattle this off to you, I have driven it for 4383 miles, and sipped down 73.167 gallons of Regular Unleaded petrol since putting it into service. For this same distance my Mercedes would have guzzled down ~292 gallons of Premium Unleaded gasoline.
My individual City-Around Town and Highway-Interstate fuel economy actuals (measured by refill method) to date are, City: 62.3 mpg (around town speed 30-45 mph) and Highway: 54.8 mpg (66 mph target Interstate cruise speed w/ intermitent A/C use). These FE numbers are mostly with the A/C off (soon to change with summer coming upon us). I also employed and continue to employ, "Pulse and Glide" and "Warp Stealth" Hybrid Hypermiling driving techniques to achieve and maintain these "stellar" FE numbers as well as keeping the tires inflated to 44 psi.
I initially commented on my 2007 Prius in CNet’s Automobile Reviews back in January, and have not changed my positive opinion of the Prius expressed there. It is my opinion that the production GEN II HSD Prius is an Engineer’s Dream that some how survived having the "suits in the corner office" ruin it by "productizing it" for mass production. I do not just "like" mine I "LOVE" it. When the "100 mpg" 2009 GEN III Prius comes out in two years, I will be trading my GEN II 2007 in on the new GEN III 2009. JP 
Prius Fuel Economy v. Manual Transmission
by rcorley - 7/7/07 8:29 PM In reply to: Hybrid Owner-Driver Relativisistics by CatgicWhile I agree that a manual transmission vehicle, intelligently driven, can get far better fuel economy than an automatic, neither can approach the fuel economy of the Prius. The best economy that I was able to achieve from a 350 ci SS Camaro 6 speed manual, which is roughly similar in size and weight to the Prius, was 40 mpg per Imperial gallon, about 33 mpg per US gallon driving at moderate highway speeds and making effective use of neutral, whereas I have achieved 70 mpg, per Imperial gallon, about 58 mpg, per US gallon averaged over a longer distance with the Prius. That being said, I think that the fuel economy of the Prius, especially for highway driving, could be very substantially improved if the gas engine were to be replaced by a clean running diesel engine.
Dodge announced a PHEV Diesel hybrid for the Sprinter van
by Melyash - 7/8/07 9:35 AM In reply to: Prius Fuel Economy v. Manual Transmission by rcorleyNY times is testing it on their fleet of distribution trucks either as we speak or very shortly. Source: Diesel Power magazine July 2007. Article starts on Page 190. The test is with Dalm/Chr and the New York Power Authority, and Con ED. Hopefully this will become an orderable option soon....
I don't get it
by Andy77e - 7/8/07 2:08 PM In reply to: Dodge announced a PHEV Diesel hybrid for the Sprinter van by MelyashI thought Chrysler was sold. How are they getting money to keep bringing out new cars?
transmissions
by cb_anthony - 7/9/07 6:58 AM In reply to: Prius Fuel Economy v. Manual Transmission by rcorleyLet's compare apples to apples here. If you're going to compare manual transmission versus automatic transmission, then the next logical comparison would be against the Prius' specific transmission, not the car itself. While I support the use of hybrids in order to reduce emissions, I think we should be fair when evaluating and making comparisons. After all, a lot of factors go into making the Prius a fuel efficient vehicle. The transmission it uses is only part of the big picture.
I haven't figure this out either
by Andy77e - 7/9/07 5:17 PM In reply to: transmissions by cb_anthonyThe CVT transmission requires more mechanical energy loss to function than a regular 4 speed auto. I have not figured this out myself, because CVTs seem to be the default standard in other countries.
The efficiency evidence, as yet, just doesn't support it. *shrug*
CVTs
by cwerdna - 7/10/07 12:36 AM In reply to: I haven't figure this out either by Andy77eHave you even seen how the CVT/PSD (Power Split Device) on the Prius even works? It has no loss from a torque converter like on an automatic transmission. Some CVTs on non-hybrids do use power sapping torque converters.
Take a look at http://eahart.com/prius/psd/ and http://prius.ecrostech.com/original/PriusFrames.htm (under Understanding Your Prius)?
BTW, if you check the CVT, 4 speed auto, and 6 speed manual versions of the 2007 Nissan Versa at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm, the MY 2008+ EPA ratings are:
CVT: 26/33, 28 combined
4 speed auto: 24/32, 27 combined
6 speed manual: 26/31, 28 combined
So, the CVT does help the cars perform better in the EPA tests.
If CVTs were less efficient, it'd seem illogical (that besides Toyota putting them on because of their HSD implementation) that Honda and Ford would put them on their hybrids too.
I will admit that Car and Driver in a recent column (can't find the article online) did not find any improvement of a CVT equipped Versa vs. either a manual or auto (don't remember which), contradicting Nissan's claims.
One possibility
by Andy77e - 7/10/07 2:03 AM In reply to: CVTs by cwerdnaI too saw the article about CVTs not showing improvement over regular automatics or manuals.
It is possible that it's the variation from different auto-makers that is the key. As in, one automaker makes a really crappy automatic, but makes a better CVT, so in that case the CVT does a better job. Then another does a real good regular automatic, but makes a crappy CVT, so the automatic is more efficient.
In thinking about it, this does make logical sense. Remember that most European autos always used manual transmission. However, CVTs have been common there for years in small scooters and mopeds. Meanwhile, here in America domestics have made regular automatics for decades. So it's likely domestics have improved automatics, while imports have perfected CVTs in Euro markets. Of course this is all speculation that just happens to fit the facts at hand.
As for the Prius CVT, that makes a lot of sense. First, it really is not a typical CVT. A typical CVT uses hydraulic pressure to slow activate clutches and planetary gear sets. Creating that hydraulic pressure is what leaches power from the drive train making it less efficient.
In this case, it uses electric motors which are more than a transmission, but actually create power. This is completely logical sense, because there needs to be a way to use electric power in the drive train anyway, given it's a hybrid.
But this doesn't exactly support typical CVTs, since a non-hybrid wouldn't use electric motors in the transmission.
CVT's primary advantage?
by geeman1082 - 7/10/07 5:59 AM In reply to: One possibility by Andy77eThe CVT in the Prius (et al.) is another of the things that takes some getting used to when driving a hybrid ... for example, my mind has had to adapt to hearing a constant engine speed even though the car is smoothly accelerating ...
I have always assumed that the primary advantage of a CVT in a hybrid is that it can be used to keep the small engine operating in its most efficient ranges a higher percentage of the time versus a transmission with only 4 to 6 discrete gears to play with ... that being the case, and given that most cars are (hopefully) designed with top gears that put the engine in an efficient mode at highway speeds, one would expect somewhat more benefit from a CVT during variable speed (e.g., in town) or variable terrain (e.g., hilly roads) driving than on a relatively flat highway ... the Nissan EPA numbers would seem to support that conclusion, albeit by such small amounts that it could be mostly due to rounding errors ... but it at least makes for interesting discussions around the engineering water cooler ...
Regards,
Greg
my hybrid
by superchf - 5/2/07 7:35 PM In reply to: Poll: Would you consider buying a hybrid or alternative-fuel car? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I have a 2002 Toyota Prius and it is the best car I have ever owned. Mine came standard with GPS and its wonderful. I never get lost. The best part of the car is the mileage that I get. I get 48 to 50 miles to the gallon around town and 40 on the freeways. A hybrid is the only way to go and my next one will be another Toyota because they started this hybrid thingy and they know what they are doing
hybrid math
by mittens - 5/2/07 7:49 PM In reply to: my hybrid by superchfI did the math last year on hybrids, mpg, price, all that cool stuff. considering the price of the car (I was seriously interested in Honda Hybrid), the price of gas now, and the MPG, it worked out to be feasible ONLY if I kept the car for fifteen years and drove it continually. In our New England climate a fifteen year old car is considered a junker, ready for the crusher. The hybrid boasted of getting something like 34 mpg, which was supposed to be impressive, except that my y2k Honda Civic regularly gets 35 highway and 34/around town! So, where's the savings?
I can't wait fifteen years to get my money back, thank you.
peter brow's efficiency comparison
by sKaar - 5/2/07 8:25 PM In reply to: hybrid math by mittenshttp://www.geocities.com/inventor_92102/efficiency.html has a rather old, but still though provoking comparison of gasoline/diesel/steam/electric cars, boils down to the thing that hybrids are no more efficient than full gas cars. the only engines that have high efficiency are those that don't run the engine at a stop, and that run the engine at best efficiency when it's not stopped. gasoline hybrids might best steam and electric, if they were designed properly, but even the big manufacturers just slap them together.
forgot to say what i'd do
by sKaar - 5/2/07 8:36 PM In reply to: peter brow's efficiency comparison by sKaari'd buy parts to build a hybrid or alt fuel car, woodgas fired boiler to run my car on steam is my preference. i won't need a car till i can finally get back to the countryside, stuck in a city i don't need a car, the bus is fine, and the busses here run on a biodiesel/fish oil mix. so when i'm not walking or developing sores on my bum from my computer seat i'm using alt fuels to get around.
Direct wood gas combustion would be far preferable
by mariasman - 6/8/07 9:56 PM In reply to: forgot to say what i'd do by sKaarWhy consider using a wood gasifier to produce steam? Why not filter and cool wood gas for direction combustion in a stock engine?
Just wondering if you're aware that quite literally more than one million vehicles were fueled by wood gas in Europe during WW2? While there are difficulties involved, if done properly a standard automotive engine operated on wood gas will see less cylinder wear than refined fuels.
My primary interest is steam power, but I have come to the conclusion that steam is best used for stationary power production. If alternative fuel sources are desired, then the versatility, simplicity, reliability, and longevity of a steam system is unparalleled. However, if the goal is converting a vehicle to operated on unrefined biomass (such as wood), then steam is not a practical alternative.
I've looked into operating internal combustion engines on wood gas off and on for last year or so. I'm convinced that the most practical alternative is to built a small wood gasifier and filter system to provide just enough wood gas to sustain the vehicle at highway speeds on level ground. The vehicle would be operated on both gasoline and wood gas. I believe that this can be done with NO engine modifications beyond piping filtered and cool wood gas into the intake manifold.
If you have any questions, then I'll answer what I can and provide some resources.
steam on woodgas vs ic on woodgas
by sKaar - 6/9/07 1:37 AM In reply to: Direct wood gas combustion would be far preferable by mariasmanoriginally i figured that the big reason for using woodgas was that it was easier to throttle than plain old wood on a pile, but i learned that pollutants from a furnace used to make steam are less problematic. ic gasoline engines burn the fuel in a way that causes high carbon monoxide production in part of the cycle and nitrous oxides in others, burning the fuel in the presense of large amounts of oxygen in the proper temperature range produces almost no nitrous oxides or carbon monoxides.
i knew that during the war there were a lot of vehicles powered by woodgas, but they used a more basic type than current technology, when opened, the fuel would spill out of the top of the generator causing long moments of illness for the person who filled the tank, and took a lung of it. modern woodgas generators are much safer, but they take a lot more work to build.
in opposition, i believe that a properly designed powerplant can be used for running a road vehicle, for instance, the field steam motorcycle is powerful, compact and attractive(though i'd change the way the water tank is connected to the boiler). for dual fuel use i would choose a fuel that is already gaseous, like propane, no carbeurator or injectors needed, lot less messing around. even further on steam powerplants, for short trips a steam vehicle could get by without a boiler, just a steam storage tank, run down to the grocer after a fill from the home boiler, hook in when you get home, easy, and safer than vehicles with a boiler.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
