-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
250mpg? When citizens hack their hybrids, apparently its possible
- Thread starter Phoenix
- Start date
- Status
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
That's awesome!
Squirrel Killer
Member
Given all the gas price and hybrid vehicle discussion, I just want to say that if anyone came out with a decent mass-produced, one or two seater, all-electric commuter car, I'd give it serious consideration, doubly so if it was price competitive. I don't care if the range is only 40 miles, that's all it would take to get my gas-hog SUV off the road. Probably a pie-in-the-sky wish, but...
Build it, and they will come.
Build it, and they will come.
Squirrel Killer said:
I would too. Use the commuter car for going to work and back and use the dino powered version on weekends where there's less traffic and I want to have some fun. However, the electric commuter car would have to actually *look* good. So far, they have all looked hideous (due to coefficient of drag considerations I would think).
Phoenix
Member
G4life98 said:
Well it 'works' but its far from 'proven'. We're still at the early adopter phase of them and there are indeed many kinks in hybrid vehicles. However, they do represent the next logical step in both performance and gas efficiency. A step that we can take sooner rather than later.
If I could purchase a new car today, it would be a Prius. I've been reading about them for a few months now and my uncle recently got one. I'm a geek for the technology it uses and the interface (there's no key, just a "start" button). Anyway, the Prius has been a huge success for Toyota and is by far the higest rated hybrid on the road.
Some nifty things about the Prius:
* The gas engine doesn't actually start until you are moving more around 25 miles per hour
* Every time you stop, the gas engine stops (if it started at all)
* You can make the car coast causing the gas engine to turn off even while driving
* It reclaims energy when breaking
* Real time heads up display shows exactly which systems are in use
Some nifty things about the Prius:
* The gas engine doesn't actually start until you are moving more around 25 miles per hour
* Every time you stop, the gas engine stops (if it started at all)
* You can make the car coast causing the gas engine to turn off even while driving
* It reclaims energy when breaking
* Real time heads up display shows exactly which systems are in use
G4life98 said:
You have your two groups of fairly distinct new car buyers - the kind that want the most affordable basic piece of transportation they can get, and in which case, hybrid cars are still too pricey and you have the guy that wants something big, loud, or at least fast. Hybrids sort of slip between that crack.
Hybrids are not the way to go. If you think adding a massive amount of battery power to a car is a solution then you haven't reserched the whole story properly. First off your talking MASSIVE amounts of battery acid that has an approximate life of 3 years. The cost of replacing said batteries is upwards of $6,000. The disposal of said toxic waste from said expired batteries is exceedingly difficult. The danger from getting in and accident and the batteries leaking/exploding is also very high. Your gas savings over the life of that car is offset by the cost to maintain it. This is not a solution to the problem so much as a short term offset that no one in their right mind would bother getting on board with.
The problem is that "plug-in" hybrids technically still encourage pollution, but I guess it would depend entirely on how your supplier is generating their power.
Stock Priuses, Insights, Escapes, Hybrid Civics, Hybrid Accords and that Lexus whose model number I can't recall at the moment all generate their power from braking. A reasonable argument can be made that his car is less green now, unless he's just concerned with the amount of "green" in his wallet.
Stock Priuses, Insights, Escapes, Hybrid Civics, Hybrid Accords and that Lexus whose model number I can't recall at the moment all generate their power from braking. A reasonable argument can be made that his car is less green now, unless he's just concerned with the amount of "green" in his wallet.
Phoenix
Member
sirris said:
Define MASSIVE? How much battery acid is in a Lithium ion polymer battery?
As with all things. They are used in a tiny fraction of cars today - mass production will drive down that price. The argument of cost is like arguing against any advance in technology which will be expensive on first release. Why not argue against LED, Xenon, adaptive front lighting systems, or ABS brakes when they were first introduced.
No it isn't. Emersing the said compounds in salt water for hours renders them inert. If it were truly a problem to deal with expired batteries - then surely you should be vetoing all forms of portable electronics which contain the same type of battery technology and are produced in volumes FAAAAAR above that of hybrid vehicles.
Its actually as high as your fuel tank exploding when you're in an accident.
The actual lifecycle cost has yet to be determined as the technology is not mature.
Phoenix said:
Compared to other stuff in its "class" is it really that ugly?
I like the Honda the best out of all those, but personally I find all of them to look incredibly generic. I realize most people buying hybrids probably don't pay too much mind to the aesthetics, but can we just get a normal looking car that happens to be a hybrid.
Phoenix
Member
xsarien said:
Well they will all encourage pollution - even if they are pure electric. We still don't have a pollution-less power source at this point. Even our 'natural' power resources will result in the production of pollution. The idea is to produce less - not to wait for something that produces 0 before starting... that would be foolish as we don't have anything on the drawing board that is that clean. Even hydrogen fuel cell cars won't be pollution-less.
The model is the Lexus 400h... the first of many Lexus and Toyota 'luxury' vehicles. The reason why people are calling for this 'plug-in' technology is to merge the benefits of both paridigms of electric cars and hybrids. If your batteries can actually carry you 20-25 miles and that's your one way commute to work - you can effectively half the pollution going into the air because at best your gas engine will only be working on the ride home as opposed to having to run to charge the batteries. This lends itself well to reducing pollution nationwide by having a less polluting power medium (which right now is primarily coal).
Phoenix
Member
tedtropy said:
Sure here you go....
The difference here is that the vehicle is not as fuel efficient as it could be as it is geared more for performance (spinning the hybrid electric and gas engines together for more oomph out of a smaller engine) than fuel economy - but it is more fuel efficient than its RX330 cousin.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
G4life98 said:
Oh it wont be long now the big three are all working on hybrid engines to put in their truck ans SUV fleets first tho because they want to bring down their avg mpg consumption where they suck at it the most. This news is great tho I would mod the shit outta my car if i had a hybrid exxon can suck me.
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
I still think that the extra cost premium of these mods over the cost of a base hybrid -- which is already greater than that of a "normal" car -- won't pay for themselves. It's going to be a while before anything like this is a good FINANCIAL decision.
A Honda Civic Hybrid is $19,900, gets up to 51MPG on the highway. Add sales tax & fees, remove $2000 for the federal tax credit, and you're still talking around $19,000 total.
A Honda Civic DX Sedan is $13,260 base, and gets up to 38MPG on the highway. No tax credit, but after taxes & such you're probably talking roughly $14,000.
Suppose you drive 12,000 miles per year. At $3 per gallon, the Civic Hybrid will cost you around $705 per year, while the non-Hybrid will cost you $947 per year, a $242 per year difference. Meaning it'll take 20 years for they hybrid's extra cost to be covered by your reduced fuel expenses. You won't own the car long enough.
Now, suppose you spend $3000 on upgrading your Civic to get 80MPG. At 12,000 miles, that's a yearly operating cost at $3 per gallon of $450. But your initial cost was $8,000 more instead of $5000 more, so even with the improved mileage, it'll still take you around 16 years to cover the cost of the hybrid & upgrade.
And since you're buying gas in both cases, the relative cost of fuel won't rise, hybrid vs non-hybrid.
Point being -- there are still very inexpensive cars that get extremely good gas mileage and have low emissions. It's far more cost effective to buy those than to buy a hybrid, even with the one-time federal tax deduction. Until and unless that changes, it makes more sense to get a fuel efficient non-hybrid.
Someone check my math
A Honda Civic Hybrid is $19,900, gets up to 51MPG on the highway. Add sales tax & fees, remove $2000 for the federal tax credit, and you're still talking around $19,000 total.
A Honda Civic DX Sedan is $13,260 base, and gets up to 38MPG on the highway. No tax credit, but after taxes & such you're probably talking roughly $14,000.
Suppose you drive 12,000 miles per year. At $3 per gallon, the Civic Hybrid will cost you around $705 per year, while the non-Hybrid will cost you $947 per year, a $242 per year difference. Meaning it'll take 20 years for they hybrid's extra cost to be covered by your reduced fuel expenses. You won't own the car long enough.
Now, suppose you spend $3000 on upgrading your Civic to get 80MPG. At 12,000 miles, that's a yearly operating cost at $3 per gallon of $450. But your initial cost was $8,000 more instead of $5000 more, so even with the improved mileage, it'll still take you around 16 years to cover the cost of the hybrid & upgrade.
And since you're buying gas in both cases, the relative cost of fuel won't rise, hybrid vs non-hybrid.
Point being -- there are still very inexpensive cars that get extremely good gas mileage and have low emissions. It's far more cost effective to buy those than to buy a hybrid, even with the one-time federal tax deduction. Until and unless that changes, it makes more sense to get a fuel efficient non-hybrid.
Someone check my math
Leatherface
Member
Odoul said:
:lol so true.
=_(
Phoenix
Member
Yep. But check the price difference between the Accords. The price difference there is about 3K tops. The thing about most of the hybrids is that in order to get vehicles of the same trim level, you can't take the 'cheapest' of another car you can find. Hybrids seem to only be offered with all the options except the navigation system and you end up throwing thosands more behind non-hybrids to get to the same trim level.
Clearly manufacturers are discounting in the options to make the vehicles more affordable. Now if you want to compare a Hybrid Civic to a Kia Rio - then yes, clearly the Rio over the lifetime of the car is going to be cheaper. But once you hit the midsizes and higher - the price difference really doesn't seem to be all that large.
A basic civic and a hybrid civic don't appear to be on par with each other trim wise... actually they seem to be a good ways apart.
Clearly manufacturers are discounting in the options to make the vehicles more affordable. Now if you want to compare a Hybrid Civic to a Kia Rio - then yes, clearly the Rio over the lifetime of the car is going to be cheaper. But once you hit the midsizes and higher - the price difference really doesn't seem to be all that large.
A basic civic and a hybrid civic don't appear to be on par with each other trim wise... actually they seem to be a good ways apart.
Phoenix
Member
To have vehicles on par you have to start with the Honda Civic EX-Special Automatic Transmission which is a base of $18,760.00 to go up against the same Honda Civic Hybrid auto which includes all the options already. So actually the price difference here from the $19,900.00 is $1200 bucks or thereabouts.
And actually if the mileage numbers are even remotely correct, it looks like you'll recoup your hybrid investment within the first 4 years of owning the vehicle just on fuel savings... and if you can mod it to plug it into the wall...
And actually if the mileage numbers are even remotely correct, it looks like you'll recoup your hybrid investment within the first 4 years of owning the vehicle just on fuel savings... and if you can mod it to plug it into the wall...
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
0 - 60 mph in only 5 minutes whooo!
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
Phoenix said:Well the Lexus 400h SUV does 0-60 in 7.3 seconds so...
... it also only gets 30 mpg (which is good, but not in the 250 mpg range).
"80-miles-per-gallon secret -- a stack of 18 brick-sized batteries that boosts the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even less fuel."
Is that 80 mpg in total, or in addition to the car's usual thriftiness? Because the Prius actually has a respectable acceleration time (11 - 12 seconds, I think).
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
ToxicAdam said:
There are actually quite a few hybrid SUVs available. The Ford Escape, and has already been mentioned in this thread, Lexus 400h both offer respectable performance with better fuel economy.
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
ToxicAdam said:
Yeah, but if you're commuting in that thing by yourself, that's a waste. If don't need to haul around lumber, tow a boat & cart your family on a daily basis, it's a good idea to have a small, high mileage car to use for your daily driving, and then just use the SUV when you actually NEED it.
And those hybrid SUVs in general don't have much towing capacity. A diesel engine is a better choice, but unfortunately you can only get those on 3/4 ton trucks & SUVs and the gas mileage is still pretty low.
Phoenix said:To have vehicles on par you have to start with the Honda Civic EX-Special Automatic Transmission which is a base of $18,760.00 to go up against the same Honda Civic Hybrid auto which includes all the options already. So actually the price difference here from the $19,900.00 is $1200 bucks or thereabouts.
And actually if the mileage numbers are even remotely correct, it looks like you'll recoup your hybrid investment within the first 4 years of owning the vehicle just on fuel savings... and if you can mod it to plug it into the wall...
Even if you didn't factor in gasoline savings, at $1200 extra, that's not a terrible price to pay for simply generating a bunch less pollution.
Phoenix
Member
OpinionatedCyborg said:
Well its roughly 50% better than its bretheren so that in itself is a huge advance.
They aren't entirely clear, but anything near 80mpg would be a godsend. Especially if its just a modificiation to a stock vehicle.
pestul said:Plug-in a solution? I wonder what kind of draw charging has.. I'm more concerned about electricity prices lately, and the last thing we need are more dammed-off conservation areas/nuclear plants.
Well that's going to happen regardless as the availability of fossil fuel decreases and we look to more alternative power sources.
When will these "environmentalists" learn that plug-in electrics (or plug in hybrids, for that matter) are actually less efficient and environmentally sound than a comparable hybrid car?
Take this example:
I'll assume that petrol engines and mains electricity are both powered by fossil fuels with roughly the same polluting qualities (a fair estimate, I would say).
I'll also assume that all engines, motors, dynamos and generators run at 75% effieiency (not a particularily fair estimate at all, but the actual numbers are irrelevant).
The Hybrid petrol engine runs at 75% efficiency, and out of the remaining 25%, 75% is converted into electricity by the dynamo, 75% of which can then be turned back into motion by the electric motor. This means that, out of a maximum of 100% fuel efficiency, a hybrid car scores about 89%.
Take, then, a plug-in electric car. The power-plant producing the electricity runs at 75% efficiency. The car's electric motor then uses up that electricity at about 75% efficiency, resulting in only 56% of the optimum efficiency you could get out of the fuel.
Now, there is something to be said for the fact that an electric-only car will be significantly lighter than a petrol, or petrol-hybrid, hence requiring less energy to run. However, with the battery weight that would be required to give such an electric car the same running distance as a petrol, that point is essentially nullified for now, and will depend entirely on the progression of battery and fuel-cell tech over the next few years.
Take this example:
I'll assume that petrol engines and mains electricity are both powered by fossil fuels with roughly the same polluting qualities (a fair estimate, I would say).
I'll also assume that all engines, motors, dynamos and generators run at 75% effieiency (not a particularily fair estimate at all, but the actual numbers are irrelevant).
The Hybrid petrol engine runs at 75% efficiency, and out of the remaining 25%, 75% is converted into electricity by the dynamo, 75% of which can then be turned back into motion by the electric motor. This means that, out of a maximum of 100% fuel efficiency, a hybrid car scores about 89%.
Take, then, a plug-in electric car. The power-plant producing the electricity runs at 75% efficiency. The car's electric motor then uses up that electricity at about 75% efficiency, resulting in only 56% of the optimum efficiency you could get out of the fuel.
Now, there is something to be said for the fact that an electric-only car will be significantly lighter than a petrol, or petrol-hybrid, hence requiring less energy to run. However, with the battery weight that would be required to give such an electric car the same running distance as a petrol, that point is essentially nullified for now, and will depend entirely on the progression of battery and fuel-cell tech over the next few years.
meh still has the same problem of other "ZEV"s.
That electricity is generated somewhere, likely by burning a fossil fuel and polluting like normal. Secondly you are losing more energy via transmission than you would in with a fuel since fuels are a solid state and don't diffuse energy as you transport them like electricity across power lines.
Demand side management. Gasoline powered fuel cels and hybrids are still the way to go, for now.
That electricity is generated somewhere, likely by burning a fossil fuel and polluting like normal. Secondly you are losing more energy via transmission than you would in with a fuel since fuels are a solid state and don't diffuse energy as you transport them like electricity across power lines.
Demand side management. Gasoline powered fuel cels and hybrids are still the way to go, for now.
Thraktor said:
IAWTP.
Currently it is simply not feasible to produce purely electric cars, not because the technology isn't available. The infrastructure for battery recharging or replacement is simply non-existent. I took a physics course dealing with energy and the environment and it was calculated that electric car owners would require at least an additional electric service equal to a clothes dryer. That would add about $35,000 CAD to an average household in addition to the car. As well, no city has the electrical distribution system that can handle such a major transfer of electricity to the transport sector. It will simply not happen in the immediate future.
I am also quite skeptical at this time about fuel cells being the savior for zero emission cars. Yes, it is efficient and clean and all that, but producing and storing the fuel of hydrogen is a major problem that will take a lot of effort to make it practical. It's not going to be easy in the next decades switching over.
Edit: Forgot to mention that the charging time for a car from an electrical outlet would probably take hours. Try selling that to people when they can fuel their current cars in a few minutes
Phoenix
Member
Thraktor said:
eh? In a plug-in electric car until the primary batteries run dry the power-plant producing electricity is not running at all. The car is essentially running entirely off electricity. It is, however, still a hybrid and capable of reclaiming power at the same efficiencies as a non-plug in hybrid car. What you described as the optimum efficiency for the plug in in your case is actually how regular hybrid cars work - not plug ins. A plug in hybrid car IS NOT an pure electric car.
Phoenix
Member
BorkBork said:
Actually that's not correct - at least not for the United States at any rate. power consumption in the US takes place at peak during the daylight hours of summer and winter months. It it assumed that any plugin hybrids would be charging primarily at night time - the same way current electric vehicles which are in service the world over do already. So unless the entire world tomorrow moves over to primarily electric cars - the United States actually has the ability to scale its current power production capability to the demand of a gradually increasing population of "people with clothes dryers that run daily".
Change is hard - just like dropping a drug habit. The first step is to admit you have a problem and be serious about what it would take to get to the solution.
And they would be able to do the same with a plug-in hybrid as well. It still has a gas tank. It still has the ability to consume fuel. The only thing different about it is that it has the ability to be recharged from a standard electrical outlet to bring its batteries to a charged state as opposed to having to burn unleaded or diesel to bring the batteries to a charged state. The only thing the plug-in folks are advocating is having the ability to charge from their electrical outlets.
Am I missing something?
I thought drawing power from a powerstation was a much more efficient form of energy than burning your own diesel or petrol to generate that same energy...
I mean, the frikkin huge power plants just have more necessary equipment to process the fuel so that it burns hotter and extracts more energy then a personal motor of any sort.
I thought drawing power from a powerstation was a much more efficient form of energy than burning your own diesel or petrol to generate that same energy...
I mean, the frikkin huge power plants just have more necessary equipment to process the fuel so that it burns hotter and extracts more energy then a personal motor of any sort.
- Status