I tend not to believe it either. How many times have emissions, fuel economy, etc. regulations been relaxed in recent years? I also don't think Toyota and Honda are so innocent. As I have witnessed in motorsport, I know they are two of the most cutthroat, downright dirty manufacturers out there. They go where the money is, it's as simple as that. They're also willing to brute force racing development with piles of cash that would be better spent toward research that doesn't involve combustion engines...like those used in motorsport.
We'll get there when we get there. I mean, according to one old Motorola roadmap we'd be using G5s right now.
And if you look at today's Toyota and Honda hybrids, they barely outperform their conventional counterparts in fuel economy. And if you look at cars like the VW Golf TDI, you'll realize that ultra efficient combustion engines are here right now... Yeah, yeah, diesel is dirty...not bio-diesel...
My next car will probably be a hybrid or electric or some sort, but that doesn't mean Toyota's going to have all of its cars be hybrid in 2012..especially with people who will demand otherwise for their sports/muscle cars and trucks.
How many times have emissions, fuel economy, etc. regulations been relaxed in recent years?
[quote]
I also don't think Toyota and Honda are so innocent. As I have witnessed in motorsport, I know they are two of the most cutthroat, downright dirty manufacturers out there. They go where the money is, it's as simple as that. They're also willing to brute force racing development with piles of cash that would be better spent toward research that doesn't involve combustion engines...like those used in motorsport.
<hr></blockquote>
Eugene, we're talking about consumer vehicles here, not Toyota's integrity as an environmentally friendly manufacturer. So they're apparently not the cleanest manufacturer out there. Big Deal?. It has nothing to do with Toyota's role in producing environmentally friendly vehicles which is a huge step in its own right.
[quote]
We'll get there when we get there. I mean, according to one old Motorola roadmap we'd be using G5s right now.
<hr></blockquote>
So What?? We're talking about a car company taking an unprecedented step here in producing environmentally friendly vehicles. Yeah, they may deviate from the roadmap, but WHAT CAR COMPANY has actually been this forthright and concerned about emissions across their entire product lineup?
[quote]
And if you look at today's Toyota and Honda hybrids, they barely outperform their conventional counterparts in fuel economy. And if you look at cars like the VW Golf TDI, you'll realize that ultra efficient combustion engines are here right now... Yeah, yeah, diesel is dirty...not bio-diesel...
<hr></blockquote>
Well, yeah, diesel is dirty. So it's not JUST about outperforming "conventional counterparts" now is it? No, it's about that and a concern for the environment.
So What?? We're talking about a car company taking an unprecedented step here in producing environmentally friendly vehicles. Yeah, they may deviate from the roadmap, but WHAT CAR COMPANY has actually been this forthright and concerned about emissions across their entire product lineup?
Well, yeah, diesel is dirty. So it's not JUST about outperforming "conventional counterparts" now is it? No, it's about that and a concern for the environment.
Basically you read my post and saw nothing but "blah blah blah blah"
First, BioDiesel is pretty damn clean.
Second, every damn manufacturer has made promises about alternative fuels. That's the damn point. If they deviate from the roadmap, then they've lied. I'm pretty effin' sure that Toyota will still have exclusively gas-powered consumer automobiles in 2012. Some consumers will demand it.
2012 is not so far away in car years. There'll still be plenty of gas only cars on the road.
Furthermore, before we get to fuel cells, we'll probably have hybrids for a long time first. The VX220 diesel concept is pretty incredible 113MPG combined cycle. Not too bad. Even if it's filthy, that's a lot less consumption than your typical gas engine, or even current hybrids. Bio fuels will probably augment the petro supply (in various formulations) untill such a time as a complete switch over to alternative power can be made.
There are infrastructure realities to deal with, and there's probably lots of room for improving the internal combustion model before we make an expensive change.
Electric isn't zero emision unless the source is clearn too, i.e. solar, winde, ect. An electirc are is just a coal car today. We need clean electricly too. Untill then, ethanol, bio deisel, ect. are almost better options. Changing a conventional car or truck to those takes little effort and the old cars don't fill the junkyards. But it dose seem like marketing hype. And it will never be more than hype untill 1) the market demands it or 2) we run out of oil.
<strong>Untill then, ethanol, bio deisel, ect. are almost better options. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Just because I harbour such a huge dislike for bio-diesel here's the <a href="http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/Beer_2001a.pdf"; target="_blank">CSIRO report</a>. Go to page 397 for final results. Keep in mind that is for buses and Australia though.
The problem with bio-diesel lies not in the burning stages it lies in the production stages since it is very heavily agriculturally reliant.
Problem with ethanol is at levels greater than 10% you start doing damage to the engine. It is also more economically costly to produce.
<strong>Electric isn't zero emision unless the source is clearn too, i.e. solar, winde, ect. An electirc are is just a coal car today. We need clean electricly too. Untill then, ethanol, bio deisel, ect. are almost better options. Changing a conventional car or truck to those takes little effort and the old cars don't fill the junkyards. But it dose seem like marketing hype. And it will never be more than hype untill 1) the market demands it or 2) we run out of oil.</strong><hr></blockquote>
2012 is not so far away in car years. There'll still be plenty of gas only cars on the road.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Toyota's announcement has nothing to do with the number of "gas-only cars" on the road before and after 2012. It has everything to do with the fact that the cars [b]they[b] produce will be predominantly hybrid at least.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>There are infrastructure realities to deal with, and there's probably lots of room for improving the internal combustion model before we make an expensive change.</strong><hr></blockquote>
2. You obviously didn't read the article. Mass-producing hybrid vehicle technology is all about eliminating the cost-penalty of hybrid/electric vehicles. And it's good for the environment too. Score-1 for totally missing the point.
1. Toyota's announcement has nothing to do with the number of "gas-only cars" on the road before and after 2012. It has everything to do with the fact that the cars they produce will be predominantly hybrid at least.
2. You obviously didn't read the article. Mass-producing hybrid vehicle technology is all about eliminating the cost-penalty of hybrid/electric vehicles. And it's good for the environment too. Score-1 for totally missing the point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Mincing words? The cars Toyota produces will be predominantly hybrid? What the hell is a predominantly hybrid car? Is it only hybrid on odd days of the week? Dude, are you part of the PR firm that did Microsoft's switch articles? After reading the article again, I'm not even convinced Toyota knows what it means when it says what it says... It may be as conservative as offering a hybrid configuration of each of their platforms for all we know. Toyota would not alienate its customers that demand gasoline powered vehicles anyway. They like money, like I said.
2. Yes, hybrids are better than traditional gas powered cars. That's not the point. Toyota's not going to be able to keep its promise. That's the point.
I should have said many of the cars being sold in 2012 (probably including those from Toyota) will still be gas only cars.
The rest of what I was saying was in response to dreams of electric only or fuel cells cars, not hybrids. Hybrids, will be the natural evolution of internal combustion engines. By 2012 that evolution will be well underway, I imagine, but they'll be far from ubiquitous. Hybrids don't have the infrastructure issues of their dreamy replacements neither on the manufacturing scale or distribution of fuel. Hydrogen fuel is the ultimate dream, but I don't see a cheap filling method yet. I think BMW has one cryo (liquid) hydrogen fuel station that they're using for testing purposes. I just don't see American gas bar franchises lining up for that expense even if a small percentage of cars hits the road running on hydrogen. How many propane or natural gas filling stations do you see out there? Nobody wants to deal with it 'cause the ROI isn't there, more than enough gas based cars to sell to.
You could get hydrogen from other on board sources but then you'd need to convert another fuel (not hydrogen) to get your hydrogen, to burn, to get electric, to power the wheels. At that point it might not be worth the trouble for a manufacturer to change so radically, not if they can get a 100MPG internal combustin engine in it's own right and further increase it's efficiency by running it in a hybrid gas-electric engine combination.
Eventually, you could run a very small capacity turbo-diesel to generate power for a highpower electric through a CVT and regenerative braking. Forget the braking for now, and look at the manufacturing of the rest. It's all stuff we know how to make already, diesel? check, turbos? check, electric motors? check. CVT's? check. Then by spinning an already frugal motor at it's ideal RPM most of the time (with the help of the CVT and assistance from the electric motor) we should get a very very frugal internal combustion engine using readily available and highly refined manufacturing techniques.
And what is GM fiat thinking to push? Diesel. straight diesel engines, not hybrids, are next up. And they'll sell so long as they can keep them quiet and not so stinky. Now add the extra efficiency of a hybrid system which would alllow you to deliver either the same power from an even smaller IC engine, or increase your power output (when needed) from the very same IC engine. With, not to much trouble, Opel could take that prototype into the 140-150MPG range using a hybrid and sacrificing some performance.
I wasn't arguing against hybrids, I think that though it'll be a while before car-makers are selling predominantly hybrid vehicles, once they arrive, they should become so good, that they will move more exotic technologies to the background for quite a while longer.
Without getting into the argument that Toyota can deliver on their promise, i think most hybrids are taking the wrong approach. Electric with gas engine to supplement is not that efficient in my opinion. While being much more efficient than a standard internal combustion only automobile, it doesn't wow you over with mind boggling fuel efficiency.
A parallel hybrid car is what we have on the market now. It' more efficient than 100% gas. but is not revolutionary. It's merely an evolution.
[code]
(fuel tank)--(IC engine)--\\
/ \\_(tranny)__(wheels)
/-(generator)---/ /
-(batteries)--(EV motor)--/
</pre><hr></blockquote>
A series hybrid is what the car companies should concentrate on. It's what I described before: a gas engine running the generator that powers the electric motor via batteries. The gas engine very directly powers the vehicle like in a parallel hybrid. In some ways it is a fuel cell vehicle, where the fuel cell is the internal combustion engine. This is an ideal set up because when real fuel cells become viable, it can be a drop in replacement for the IC engine! For a manufacturer this is ideal; very little reworking of the internal layout of the automobile.
Think about this. Our desire for fast acceleration causes our cars to be much less efficient than they could be. A car with a less powerful engine gets way better gas mileage than a car with a very powerful engine.
But most of what we require a car to do uses about 10% percentage of its horsepower (if the car starts out with like 200hp). When you are driving your car on the highway at 65Mph, your engine has to provide the power to do three things: Overcome the drag caused by pushing the car through the air, overcome the friction in the car's components such as the tires, transmission, axles and brakes and provide power for stuff like AC, power steering, power brakes, stereo and headlights.
Doing all this requires less than 20 horsepower. So, why do you need a car with 200 horsepower? So you can "floor it," which is the only time you use all that power. The rest of the time, you use considerably less power than you have available. That's the idea behind parallel hybrids.
But series hybrids let you use a simple 2 cycle diesel engine driving a generator hooked up to a very powerful electric motor. One thing that a decade of running RC cars has taught me is that an electric car can outrun any nitro IC engine car in acceleration and top speed provided you have a motor than can handle it. The main advantage of nitro engines is the run time of about 45 minutes versus about 6-7 minutes of a car with a electric motor and a 2400-3000mAh battery. But if they made fuel cells small and cheap enough, no one would run nitro anymore.
Also of note, the Honda Insight is what I like to call a pseudo-hybrid. It's basically a cheesy IC engine with a huge starter. The electric engine doubles as a starter and a power augment to the IC engine. Normally you drive off the IC engine. If you are pushing the IC engine past what it can do (like a fast acceleration from a stop light) the electric motor kicks in and starts helping the IC engine out by helping to turn the crankshaft. Most of the real enhancements are done on the aerodynamic front, like the teardrop shape of the body and partially covered wheel wells. Personally I don't like this approach, but if it works , it works.
... But series hybrids let you use a simple 2 cycle diesel engine driving a generator hooked up to a very powerful electric motor....</strong><hr></blockquote>
You've obviously put a great deal of thought into this so why a 2 cycle diesel engine? 2 cycle gas engines are notoriuosly dirty. Are 2 cycle diesels cleaner?
1. Mincing words? The cars Toyota produces will be predominantly hybrid? What the hell is a predominantly hybrid car? Is it only hybrid on odd days of the week? Dude, are you part of the PR firm that did Microsoft's switch articles? After reading the article again, I'm not even convinced Toyota knows what it means when it says what it says... It may be as conservative as offering a hybrid configuration of each of their platforms for all we know. Toyota would not alienate its customers that demand gasoline powered vehicles anyway. They like money, like I said.
2. Yes, hybrids are better than traditional gas powered cars. That's not the point. Toyota's not going to be able to keep its promise. That's the point.
1. Obviously that's not the case as you so thoroughly pointed out. What is the case is that a clear majority of the cars that Toyota manufactures in 2012 will be hybrid rather than "gas-only" vehicles. Clearly a misplaced modifier akin to your "4/3" typo... Hypocrite.
2. No, the point is that a major car company has been this forthright about producing eco-friendly vehicles, not whether they can fulfill 100% of its promise. They could renege on 70% of their promise and that would still mean a sizeable increase in the percentage of eco-friendly cars they currently produce.
You've obviously put a great deal of thought into this so why a 2 cycle diesel engine? 2 cycle gas engines are notoriuosly dirty. Are 2 cycle diesels cleaner?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Obviously that's not the case as you so thoroughly pointed out. What is the case is that a clear majority of the cars that Toyota manufactures in 2012 will be hybrid rather than "gas-only" vehicles. Clearly a misplaced modifier akin to your "4/3" typo... Hypocrite.
2. No, the point is that a major car company has been this forthright about producing eco-friendly vehicles, not whether they can fulfill 100% of its promise. They could renege on 70% of their promise and that would still mean a sizeable increase in the percentage of eco-friendly cars they currently produce.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Typo vs brainpo.
2. And what happens when DaimlerChrysler (or anybody else) beats Toyota to 100% hybrid? 70%? 100% fuel-cell? What then? You still going to cheerlead Toyota? And as it stands, the hybrids are barely better than their gas counterparts. Honda's Civic HX gets nearly the mileage of their hybrid Civic with lower emissions per gallon of fuel burned.
Just like with anything else in any industry, I'll believe it when I see it.
Don't confuse fuel economy with engine efficiency. They are connected to a point but you need to be careful at what you are looking at and the comparisons.
Toyota will be remembered in history as the first major car company to announce a clear goal of replacing most of its gas-only fleet with hybrid vehicles in the near future. Not "100 years down the road cars will be nuclear fusion powered and flying-capable." Rather, they have established a plan to coincide with their prediction and did so within a workable timeframe. Hybrid technology is the most feasable technology ATM, as the article explained in saying that Toyota might sell their technology to other car companies. Fuel Cell only cars are the next step- a step which resembles the nuclear fusion prophecy since the tech just isn't here- or at least implimentation of it.
<strong>Don't confuse fuel economy with engine efficiency. They are connected to a point but you need to be careful at what you are looking at and the comparisons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's precisely what I was hinting at above. The Honda Civic Hybrid is classified as a ULEV while there are gas-only powered cars from Honda and others classified as SULEVs. There are gas-powered cars that are more eco-friendly per gallon of fuel consumed than the Honda or Toyota hybrids. It gets close once you figure in the rate of consumption though.
Alternative fuel cars will become popular when it becomes fashionable to buy them-right now it is fashionable to drive loud gigantic gas guzzling SUVs and eat giant portions of heart attack food-when that type of life goes out of style and alternative fuel cars come in American companies will be caught with their pants down.American companies are way behind because they are thinking in a very retro manner-the Japanese are way head in robotics as well-this decade will become the decade of the PR-the personal robot.
Comments
We'll get there when we get there. I mean, according to one old Motorola roadmap we'd be using G5s right now.
And if you look at today's Toyota and Honda hybrids, they barely outperform their conventional counterparts in fuel economy. And if you look at cars like the VW Golf TDI, you'll realize that ultra efficient combustion engines are here right now... Yeah, yeah, diesel is dirty...not bio-diesel...
My next car will probably be a hybrid or electric or some sort, but that doesn't mean Toyota's going to have all of its cars be hybrid in 2012..especially with people who will demand otherwise for their sports/muscle cars and trucks.
How many times have emissions, fuel economy, etc. regulations been relaxed in recent years?
[quote]
I also don't think Toyota and Honda are so innocent. As I have witnessed in motorsport, I know they are two of the most cutthroat, downright dirty manufacturers out there. They go where the money is, it's as simple as that. They're also willing to brute force racing development with piles of cash that would be better spent toward research that doesn't involve combustion engines...like those used in motorsport.
<hr></blockquote>
Eugene, we're talking about consumer vehicles here, not Toyota's integrity as an environmentally friendly manufacturer. So they're apparently not the cleanest manufacturer out there. Big Deal?. It has nothing to do with Toyota's role in producing environmentally friendly vehicles which is a huge step in its own right.
[quote]
We'll get there when we get there. I mean, according to one old Motorola roadmap we'd be using G5s right now.
<hr></blockquote>
So What?? We're talking about a car company taking an unprecedented step here in producing environmentally friendly vehicles. Yeah, they may deviate from the roadmap, but WHAT CAR COMPANY has actually been this forthright and concerned about emissions across their entire product lineup?
[quote]
And if you look at today's Toyota and Honda hybrids, they barely outperform their conventional counterparts in fuel economy. And if you look at cars like the VW Golf TDI, you'll realize that ultra efficient combustion engines are here right now... Yeah, yeah, diesel is dirty...not bio-diesel...
<hr></blockquote>
Well, yeah, diesel is dirty. So it's not JUST about outperforming "conventional counterparts" now is it? No, it's about that and a concern for the environment.
[ 10-31-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
<strong>
So What?? We're talking about a car company taking an unprecedented step here in producing environmentally friendly vehicles. Yeah, they may deviate from the roadmap, but WHAT CAR COMPANY has actually been this forthright and concerned about emissions across their entire product lineup?
Well, yeah, diesel is dirty. So it's not JUST about outperforming "conventional counterparts" now is it? No, it's about that and a concern for the environment.
[ 10-31-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Basically you read my post and saw nothing but "blah blah blah blah"
First, BioDiesel is pretty damn clean.
Second, every damn manufacturer has made promises about alternative fuels. That's the damn point. If they deviate from the roadmap, then they've lied. I'm pretty effin' sure that Toyota will still have exclusively gas-powered consumer automobiles in 2012. Some consumers will demand it.
2012 is not so far away in car years. There'll still be plenty of gas only cars on the road.
Furthermore, before we get to fuel cells, we'll probably have hybrids for a long time first. The VX220 diesel concept is pretty incredible 113MPG combined cycle. Not too bad. Even if it's filthy, that's a lot less consumption than your typical gas engine, or even current hybrids. Bio fuels will probably augment the petro supply (in various formulations) untill such a time as a complete switch over to alternative power can be made.
There are infrastructure realities to deal with, and there's probably lots of room for improving the internal combustion model before we make an expensive change.
<strong>Untill then, ethanol, bio deisel, ect. are almost better options. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Just because I harbour such a huge dislike for bio-diesel here's the <a href="http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/Beer_2001a.pdf"; target="_blank">CSIRO report</a>. Go to page 397 for final results. Keep in mind that is for buses and Australia though.
The problem with bio-diesel lies not in the burning stages it lies in the production stages since it is very heavily agriculturally reliant.
Problem with ethanol is at levels greater than 10% you start doing damage to the engine. It is also more economically costly to produce.
<strong>Electric isn't zero emision unless the source is clearn too, i.e. solar, winde, ect. An electirc are is just a coal car today. We need clean electricly too. Untill then, ethanol, bio deisel, ect. are almost better options. Changing a conventional car or truck to those takes little effort and the old cars don't fill the junkyards. But it dose seem like marketing hype. And it will never be more than hype untill 1) the market demands it or 2) we run out of oil.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Have you ever heard of fuel cells?
<strong>
2012 is not so far away in car years. There'll still be plenty of gas only cars on the road.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Toyota's announcement has nothing to do with the number of "gas-only cars" on the road before and after 2012. It has everything to do with the fact that the cars [b]they[b] produce will be predominantly hybrid at least.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>There are infrastructure realities to deal with, and there's probably lots of room for improving the internal combustion model before we make an expensive change.</strong><hr></blockquote>
2. You obviously didn't read the article. Mass-producing hybrid vehicle technology is all about eliminating the cost-penalty of hybrid/electric vehicles. And it's good for the environment too. Score-1 for totally missing the point.
<strong>
1. Toyota's announcement has nothing to do with the number of "gas-only cars" on the road before and after 2012. It has everything to do with the fact that the cars they produce will be predominantly hybrid at least.
2. You obviously didn't read the article. Mass-producing hybrid vehicle technology is all about eliminating the cost-penalty of hybrid/electric vehicles. And it's good for the environment too. Score-1 for totally missing the point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Mincing words? The cars Toyota produces will be predominantly hybrid? What the hell is a predominantly hybrid car? Is it only hybrid on odd days of the week? Dude, are you part of the PR firm that did Microsoft's switch articles? After reading the article again, I'm not even convinced Toyota knows what it means when it says what it says... It may be as conservative as offering a hybrid configuration of each of their platforms for all we know. Toyota would not alienate its customers that demand gasoline powered vehicles anyway. They like money, like I said.
2. Yes, hybrids are better than traditional gas powered cars. That's not the point. Toyota's not going to be able to keep its promise. That's the point.
[ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
The rest of what I was saying was in response to dreams of electric only or fuel cells cars, not hybrids. Hybrids, will be the natural evolution of internal combustion engines. By 2012 that evolution will be well underway, I imagine, but they'll be far from ubiquitous. Hybrids don't have the infrastructure issues of their dreamy replacements neither on the manufacturing scale or distribution of fuel. Hydrogen fuel is the ultimate dream, but I don't see a cheap filling method yet. I think BMW has one cryo (liquid) hydrogen fuel station that they're using for testing purposes. I just don't see American gas bar franchises lining up for that expense even if a small percentage of cars hits the road running on hydrogen. How many propane or natural gas filling stations do you see out there? Nobody wants to deal with it 'cause the ROI isn't there, more than enough gas based cars to sell to.
You could get hydrogen from other on board sources but then you'd need to convert another fuel (not hydrogen) to get your hydrogen, to burn, to get electric, to power the wheels. At that point it might not be worth the trouble for a manufacturer to change so radically, not if they can get a 100MPG internal combustin engine in it's own right and further increase it's efficiency by running it in a hybrid gas-electric engine combination.
Eventually, you could run a very small capacity turbo-diesel to generate power for a highpower electric through a CVT and regenerative braking. Forget the braking for now, and look at the manufacturing of the rest. It's all stuff we know how to make already, diesel? check, turbos? check, electric motors? check. CVT's? check. Then by spinning an already frugal motor at it's ideal RPM most of the time (with the help of the CVT and assistance from the electric motor) we should get a very very frugal internal combustion engine using readily available and highly refined manufacturing techniques.
Again, take a look at this <a href="http://www.carkeys.co.uk/features/FE000450.htm"; target="_blank">Opel VX220 diesel racer</a> 113MPG
And what is GM fiat thinking to push? Diesel. straight diesel engines, not hybrids, are next up. And they'll sell so long as they can keep them quiet and not so stinky. Now add the extra efficiency of a hybrid system which would alllow you to deliver either the same power from an even smaller IC engine, or increase your power output (when needed) from the very same IC engine. With, not to much trouble, Opel could take that prototype into the 140-150MPG range using a hybrid and sacrificing some performance.
I wasn't arguing against hybrids, I think that though it'll be a while before car-makers are selling predominantly hybrid vehicles, once they arrive, they should become so good, that they will move more exotic technologies to the background for quite a while longer.
[ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
A parallel hybrid car is what we have on the market now. It' more efficient than 100% gas. but is not revolutionary. It's merely an evolution.
[code]
(fuel tank)--(IC engine)--\\
/ \\_(tranny)__(wheels)
/-(generator)---/ /
-(batteries)--(EV motor)--/
</pre><hr></blockquote>
A series hybrid is what the car companies should concentrate on. It's what I described before: a gas engine running the generator that powers the electric motor via batteries. The gas engine very directly powers the vehicle like in a parallel hybrid. In some ways it is a fuel cell vehicle, where the fuel cell is the internal combustion engine. This is an ideal set up because when real fuel cells become viable, it can be a drop in replacement for the IC engine! For a manufacturer this is ideal; very little reworking of the internal layout of the automobile.
(fuel tank)--(IC engine)--(generator)--(batteries)--(electric motor)--(tranny)--(wheels)
Think about this. Our desire for fast acceleration causes our cars to be much less efficient than they could be. A car with a less powerful engine gets way better gas mileage than a car with a very powerful engine.
But most of what we require a car to do uses about 10% percentage of its horsepower (if the car starts out with like 200hp). When you are driving your car on the highway at 65Mph, your engine has to provide the power to do three things: Overcome the drag caused by pushing the car through the air, overcome the friction in the car's components such as the tires, transmission, axles and brakes and provide power for stuff like AC, power steering, power brakes, stereo and headlights.
Doing all this requires less than 20 horsepower. So, why do you need a car with 200 horsepower? So you can "floor it," which is the only time you use all that power. The rest of the time, you use considerably less power than you have available. That's the idea behind parallel hybrids.
But series hybrids let you use a simple 2 cycle diesel engine driving a generator hooked up to a very powerful electric motor. One thing that a decade of running RC cars has taught me is that an electric car can outrun any nitro IC engine car in acceleration and top speed provided you have a motor than can handle it. The main advantage of nitro engines is the run time of about 45 minutes versus about 6-7 minutes of a car with a electric motor and a 2400-3000mAh battery. But if they made fuel cells small and cheap enough, no one would run nitro anymore.
<strong>
... But series hybrids let you use a simple 2 cycle diesel engine driving a generator hooked up to a very powerful electric motor....</strong><hr></blockquote>
You've obviously put a great deal of thought into this so why a 2 cycle diesel engine? 2 cycle gas engines are notoriuosly dirty. Are 2 cycle diesels cleaner?
<strong>
1. Mincing words? The cars Toyota produces will be predominantly hybrid? What the hell is a predominantly hybrid car? Is it only hybrid on odd days of the week? Dude, are you part of the PR firm that did Microsoft's switch articles? After reading the article again, I'm not even convinced Toyota knows what it means when it says what it says... It may be as conservative as offering a hybrid configuration of each of their platforms for all we know. Toyota would not alienate its customers that demand gasoline powered vehicles anyway. They like money, like I said.
2. Yes, hybrids are better than traditional gas powered cars. That's not the point. Toyota's not going to be able to keep its promise. That's the point.
[ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Obviously that's not the case as you so thoroughly pointed out. What is the case is that a clear majority of the cars that Toyota manufactures in 2012 will be hybrid rather than "gas-only" vehicles. Clearly a misplaced modifier akin to your "4/3" typo... Hypocrite.
2. No, the point is that a major car company has been this forthright about producing eco-friendly vehicles, not whether they can fulfill 100% of its promise. They could renege on 70% of their promise and that would still mean a sizeable increase in the percentage of eco-friendly cars they currently produce.
<strong>
You've obviously put a great deal of thought into this so why a 2 cycle diesel engine? 2 cycle gas engines are notoriuosly dirty. Are 2 cycle diesels cleaner?</strong><hr></blockquote>
oops I meant 2 cylinder.
<strong>
1. Obviously that's not the case as you so thoroughly pointed out. What is the case is that a clear majority of the cars that Toyota manufactures in 2012 will be hybrid rather than "gas-only" vehicles. Clearly a misplaced modifier akin to your "4/3" typo... Hypocrite.
2. No, the point is that a major car company has been this forthright about producing eco-friendly vehicles, not whether they can fulfill 100% of its promise. They could renege on 70% of their promise and that would still mean a sizeable increase in the percentage of eco-friendly cars they currently produce.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Typo vs brainpo.
2. And what happens when DaimlerChrysler (or anybody else) beats Toyota to 100% hybrid? 70%? 100% fuel-cell? What then? You still going to cheerlead Toyota? And as it stands, the hybrids are barely better than their gas counterparts. Honda's Civic HX gets nearly the mileage of their hybrid Civic with lower emissions per gallon of fuel burned.
Just like with anything else in any industry, I'll believe it when I see it.
<strong>Don't confuse fuel economy with engine efficiency. They are connected to a point but you need to be careful at what you are looking at and the comparisons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's precisely what I was hinting at above. The Honda Civic Hybrid is classified as a ULEV while there are gas-only powered cars from Honda and others classified as SULEVs. There are gas-powered cars that are more eco-friendly per gallon of fuel consumed than the Honda or Toyota hybrids. It gets close once you figure in the rate of consumption though.
<a href="http://www.theaircar.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.theaircar.com/</a>;
Alternative fuel cars will become popular when it becomes fashionable to buy them-right now it is fashionable to drive loud gigantic gas guzzling SUVs and eat giant portions of heart attack food-when that type of life goes out of style and alternative fuel cars come in American companies will be caught with their pants down.American companies are way behind because they are thinking in a very retro manner-the Japanese are way head in robotics as well-this decade will become the decade of the PR-the personal robot.
[ 11-02-2002: Message edited by: Rick1138 ]</p>