HYbrid Technology

[Garrett Lowell]

What a scam. I priced out a Honda Civic Hybrid Sedan and compared it to a comparably equipped Honda Civic Sedan. The Hybrid was $3041.00 more. On the highway, the Civic Sedan claims 40mpg with the automatic (only 38 with the manual). The Hybrid claims 51mpg; CVT is the only available transmission.

On my driving schedule and at current fuel prices, it would only take 16 years of driving to break even on the additional $3041.00-at 17,280 miles/year that equals 276480 miles. If fuel prices leapt to $6.00/gallon, I would break even in a mere 5 years.

Compared to the base model Civic, it's almost impossible to ever recoup the additional money spent on the Hybrid version. The difference is $6709.

The Prius is even worse: it costs a staggering $8500.00 more than a comparably equipped Yaris sedan. The Prius claims 60mpg on the highway, the Yaris 40mpg. I'm not even going to bother to compute that difference.

[George Jung]

I might point out that you may qualify for a tax credit if you purchase the hybrid. YMMV :D (perhaps the only time that can truly be said!)

[Garrett Lowell]

True and I had forgotten that: $1575.00 for the Prius up to March 31, 2007. April 1 it drops to $787.50.

For the Civic it comes to $2100.00, which makes a Hybrid a bit more attractive from a cost perspective.

There's no tax incentive from the state of VA. However, all Hybrids are allowed to ride in the VA HOV lanes regardless of number of passengers.

[ljb5]

People often pay more for extras which provide no real added benefit.

[LeeG]

That's the problem with designing energy using devices for todays prices. It makes no economic sense.

So let's wait until gas is $5/gal and THEN try and introduce new technologies?

I'm grateful for all those folks buying hybrids,,when gas does hit $6/gal there will be a wide range of used cars to chose from and the technologies will have winnowed out the problems.

And used Civics, Corrollas and Scions will be good deals.

[The Bigfella]

It makes no economic sense.


And a Porsche does? If cars were about economic sense - we'd all be driving the same thing

[LeeG]

Porsches make sense from an engineering and use stand point.

I meant to say that it doesn't make sense at todays fuel prices. Hybrids make sense for stop/go delivery vehicles or emissions but for economical transportation nothing beats a lighter vehicle and modest acceleration.
The dumb part is giving hybrids a free pass on HOV lanes with only one driver in them.

[George Roberts]

In California you could get a sticker for your hybrid that allows driving in the HOV lanes. (There are no more stickers being issued.)

There is some talk about allowing the the stickers to be transferred.

If transfers are allowed, it is expected that SUVs will be using the stickers and the HOV lanes.

Economic changes have all sorts of "unexpected" results.

[Scott Rosen]

Some folks get personal satisfaction by using less fuel and driving a more efficient machine, even it it's just barely break-even financially.

[Brian Palmer]

I've had a Prius for about 18 months and you cannot compare the Prius to a Yaris.
The Yaris is a subcompact econobox.
The Prius is actually almost as big on the inside as a Camry (also now available in a hybrid). I am 6 ft 3, and I can slide the front seat all the way back on our Prius and then get in the back and I still have 3 inches between my knees and the front seat. The rear cargo area on the Prius (behind the second row of seats) has enough room for our family's luggage (two adults and two kids) for an extended trip from PA to IL to visit relatives over Thanksgiving, including a load of X-mas gifts for the kids on the way back.

Like ljb5 said, people pay for stuff on cars that will never give them a payback, like sun roofs and leather seats.

The fuel economy on the hybrids is like an insurance policy against high fuel prices, like what happened after Katrina.

PA has a rebate program for alternative fuel vehicles, including hybrids. We got a $500 check after we bought ours. Check with your state.

-- Brian

[Keith Wilson]

Two points: Most of the difference between a hybrid and a conventional car is not on the highway, but around town where it can use regenerative braking, and where the electric motor carries more of the load.. And many of the hybrids, particularly the larger ones, are not designed for better gas mileage, but for more power and better performance with about the same gas mileage. Still, at current gas prices, they don't make a lot of sense from a purely economic standpoint. Most cars, and all new cars, don't make economic sense.

[willmarsh3]

Berryville, VA - if you work in DC then you would qualify to use the HOV lanes there with the Prius, IIRC. But there was talk of abolishing that. What I did was get a Toyota Tercel (40mpg or better) for driving to work. I have an extended cab pickup for towing the boat, hauling stuff, or if I have several passengers.

[Garrett Lowell]

Some good comments here. I'll add mine.

Brian, I'm 6'2 and I've test driven both the Prius and the Yaris. I fit in both fine, with plenty of space. The luggage capacity is nearly the same (Prius has 1.5 cubic feet more luggage capacity and 9.1 cubic feet more passenger capacity than the Yaris sedan-for only 8500 dollars more). For my purposes of commuting to Dulles, VA, which is about 90 miles round trip, 4 days a week, the two cars may just as well be the same. The Yaris is only marginally smaller than the Prius, certainly not enough of a difference to justify an additional 8500 dollars. That additional money is without any additional upgrades for the Prius, while the Yaris is as pimped out as you can order it.

Bigfella-Most people don't buy a Porsche for commuting or fuel savings-it is a luxury item. Most people wouldn't buy a Prius or a Honda Civic Hybrid for high performance driving.

Scott made a good point about personal satisfaction-imagining you're actually decreasing your carbon footprint by driving a Hybrid. However, I think this holds true for the folks who drive the big SUVs as well-imagining you're actually going out for a weekend in the wilderness. For the most part, neither are true. The Prius would probably suffer only marginally in it's performance and mileage if it maintained the same engine and completely did away with the battery and electric motor (what is the energy cost of the additional manufacturing? How are they disposed of when they're no longer useable?).

I think Lee has the best point: lighter weight and reasonable performance.

[Dan McCosh]

The sales of hybrids despite the lack of a rationale based on money saved from the improved mileage is what took the auto industry by surprise. The hybrids not only started out selling well, they were sold without discounts and equipped with high-end features. The latter is the most apt comparison, and since the full list of equipment is fairly costly, the price point for comparison with a hybrid is fairly high.
The main benifit to a hybrid, however, is not fuel economy per se, but low emissions in real-world urban driving. The engine-off feature alone dramatically improves air quality in areas with lots of stoplights. The engines are mainly rated at PZEV levels--which is the lowest emission on the market. The Prius/Yaris is not a good comparison, as the Yaris is a smaller car anyway. All in all, a smaller, lower cost car with high mileage numbers is always going to be the cheapest car to drive. That's why they call them economy cars.

[brad9798]

Beyond being trendy ... the in thing ... hybrids provide NO financial incentive to the owner!

Also, and no one likes to discuss this ... they are terribly dangerous in an accident ... with the batteries, etc.

I know at least in my town, a few EMTs have been put in the hospital just by touching the metal on a hybrid after an accident ...

Another thing to think about ...

BTW- sunroofs and leather seats are NOT a waste ... I enjoy them IMMENSELY! Also the heated seats in the winter!

[Bruce Hooke]

A point that has already been made deserves to be emphasized (IMOOP). Comparing the MPG at highway speed is the going to tip the comparison in favor of the non-hybrids. To be a fair comparison you really need to bring in the city MPG. If, in fact, almost all of your driving is at highway speeds then a hybrid may not make as much sense for you as it does for someone who spends more time driving in the city or driving on winding, rural roads.

That said, everyone I know who has a hybrid has gone that route in part because they believe they should put their money where the mouth is when it comes to environmental matters.

[brad9798]

Oh, and, if you want to save the world ... get a VW diesel ... better mileage than hybrids ... and LESS expensive ...

[brad9798]

Oh, and forget hybrids ... increase ALL mpg by 10% across the board ... it CAN be done!

That would solve many probs.

[Brian Palmer]

Dan's right about the urban mileage and air quality. One way to think of it is that hybrids get such good mileage because they never really get bad mileage. In stop and go traffic in an urban setting, they can get 50 mpg, while even small conventional single engine cars will get 20 mpg and bigger cars (like our Chrysler minivan) will get 10 mpg, for example. So that is 60 to 80 percent less emissions in urban areas where smog is a real issue.

You need to look at what you are really getting for mileage, and not just at the EPA rating numbers. My Corrolla wagon got 30 mpg around town and on the highway commute to work. Our minivan is getting about 16 mpg in around town driving. In the same kind of driving the Prius is getting 43 to 50 mpg, depending on the season.

Those are pretty big differences, even between the Corrolla and the Prius.


- Brian

[Garrett Lowell]

Those are all good points.

I maintain that the Prius and the Yaris are comparable in size and admit that the Yaris is marginally, almost negligibly smaller. These are comparable machines.

Perhaps the better comparison would be the Prius and the Honda Fit-the Honda is much larger in the interior than the Prius. Here are the stats:
Passenger Volume: Prius-96.2 cubic feet/Fit-90.0 cubic feet
Luggage capacity: Prius-14.4 cubic feet/Fit-21.3 cubic feet (seat up); 41.9 cubic feet (seat down)
Wheelbase: Prius-106.3 in/Fit-96.5 in
Price difference (basest of the base Prius/pimped out Fit) $7030.00
Price difference (Comparably equipped Prius/Fit) $10409.00
MPG(city/highway): Prius-60/51 Fit-33/38

Even if all of your driving was in the city at 10 mpg, you could almost never break even on the cost difference. The Honda Fit is a ULEVII vehicle and the Prius is a PZEV. I can't find the differences between the two so that I can perform a comparison. I would bet either are very good for the air quality.

I'm disappointed that I can't get a reasonably (or unreasonably) priced car for commuting that averages more than 60mpg in highway driving.

[Dan McCosh]

Beyond being trendy ... the in thing ... hybrids provide NO financial incentive to the owner!

Also, and no one likes to discuss this ... they are terribly dangerous in an accident ... with the batteries, etc.

I know at least in my town, a few EMTs have been put in the hospital just by touching the metal on a hybrid after an accident ...

Another thing to think about ...

BTW- sunroofs and leather seats are NOT a waste ... I enjoy them IMMENSELY! Also the heated seats in the winter!

Do you have any leads on the electric shock on EMTs? I've never heard of this before.

[Garrett Lowell]

Not mentioned is the additional manufacturing and disposal of the batteries for these cars, which has it's own environmental impacts. Perhaps Partial Zero Emissions Vehicles are really Partially Remote Emissions Vehicles, as the air quality elsewhere will bear the impacts.

[ljb5]

Not mentioned is the additional manufacturing and disposal of the batteries for these cars, which has it's own environmental impacts. Perhaps Partial Zero Emissions Vehicles are really Partially Remote Emissions Vehicles, as the air quality elsewhere will bear the impacts.

Manufacturing the batteries isn't as serious a concern as you pretend.

All cars are manufactured, and all contain parts that are made from chemicals. I'm not convinced that making batteries is any worse than making catalytic converters, brake pads or ABS dashboards.

Disoposing of them isn't a terrible concern either. Return them to the manufacturer for recycling. Not significantly worse than used engine oil. At least it's contained and not spewed all over the atmosphere.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that the best solution is to increase the mpg of all cars -- or perhaps just the worst offenders. If your boat is sinking, the smart thing to do is to plug the big holes first. No sense in worrying about the small holes first.

[Brian Palmer]

Beyond being trendy ... the in thing ... hybrids provide NO financial incentive to the owner!

Also, and no one likes to discuss this ... they are terribly dangerous in an accident ... with the batteries, etc.

I know at least in my town, a few EMTs have been put in the hospital just by touching the metal on a hybrid after an accident ...

Another thing to think about ...

BTW- sunroofs and leather seats are NOT a waste ... I enjoy them IMMENSELY! Also the heated seats in the winter!

There are no confirmed cases of EMTs being shocked by hybrids while attending to accident scenes. The largest risk seems to be the cars still being able to move although they are silent. They have to be blocked until thoroughly disabled.

The Prius system deactivates the high voltage system when the airbags are deployed, or it detects a rapid decelleration as in a crash.

FWIW, un-deployed side curtain airbags and front passenger air bags also represent a safety risk to EMTs and others who are attending to victims still in vehicles. Perhaps you should forgo those options, as well, on your next vehicle purchase.

-- Brian

[Scott Rosen]

This is a timely post for me, because I've been thinking about getting a new car, and I'm leaning toward a hybrid.

I have a five mile drive to work, city, not highway driving. If I have a car that gets 50 mpg city, I'll use about a gallon of gas a week to and from work. With a 15 gallon gas tank, and an occassional longer trip, I wouldn't have to fill the tank even once a month.

It may not save that much money, but I really, really like the idea of driving an efficient vehicle. If I'm going to waste money, I'd rather not waste it on gasoline. I'd rather waste it on expensive beer, a good dinner, or boat stuff. I'm into efficiency. My two favorite modes of transportation are sailboat and bicycle, both of which are energy efficient.

[Dan McCosh]

Not mentioned is the additional manufacturing and disposal of the batteries for these cars, which has it's own environmental impacts. Perhaps Partial Zero Emissions Vehicles are really Partially Remote Emissions Vehicles, as the air quality elsewhere will bear the impacts.

Auto batteries in general are almost completely recycled. The nickel in nickel-metal hydrides has a big scrap value--which makes theft a larger issue. As for PZEV ratings, this isn't specifically aimed at hybrids. It is the highest level of exhaust standards for regulated emissions--HC, CO and NOx, combined with additional evaporative standards, including odd issues such as upholstery fumes. The net effect is a vehicle that is difficult to measure as it often emits lower levels than what is present in the surrounding air. The hybrid enhances this by shutting off the engine completely at stop lights. This is the reason the so-called mild hybrids, which mainly use the engine stop feature, are still quite effective at reducing exhaust emissions, although they aren't that good at improving fuel mileage.
Might add that diesels, while very good at fuel efficiency, tend to be considerably worse than the top-rated gasoline engines or hybrids on toxic emissions, particularly NOx

[brad9798]

My local newspaper has reported this a couple of times ... shocks, etc.

Hybrids simply delay the environmental effects ... they make us feel good.

[WillW]

My local newspaper has reported this a couple of times ... shocks, etc.

Hybrids simply delay the environmental effects ... they make us feel good.


On the contrary, hybrids are a stepping stone to a more efficient solution, the plug-in hybrid. It will have range for the infrequent times that you need it, such as weekends and holidays, and can be plugged overnight for the average weekday journeys. oh, and it will be built in the US.

The thing that Toyota has demonstrated with hybrids is that consumers want better solutions, right now, and the way to get there is through incremental improvements.

[Dan McCosh]

My local newspaper has reported this a couple of times ... shocks, etc.

Hybrids simply delay the environmental effects ... they make us feel good.

What's the local newspaper? Any way to see the stories?

[Brian Palmer]

From Automotive Digest:

Toyota Corrects Erroneous Story About Emergency Workers and Hybrid Vehicles; Toyota Prius Engine Safety in the Event of an Accident Sourced From: Toyota Press Release, May 4-6, 2004

Situation
1. Toyota Prius hybrid has many safety features to protect emergency workers responding to accidents
2. AP article, other reports indicated emergency workers who cut through doors of hybrid may receive shock
3. Power cables aren’t near doors but well outside area likely to be accessed by emergency crews
4. High voltage cables, components heavily insulated, shielded, isolated, painted bright orange
5. All Emergency Response Guides for Toyota’s alternative fuel vehicles on company web site

Significant Points
1. Previous report info wrong, says Toyota — power cables automatically shut down after accident
2. High voltage batteries contained in extremely strong protective case in area not likely to be damaged
3. Drivetrain management computers continuously monitor vehicle, disable systems when problem detected
4. Engine shut off, high voltage cables disconnected if airbag deployed or sudden deceleration detected

Says"We have worked very closely with experienced safety crews to identify how best to ensure the safety of everyone involved. The fact is that Prius hybrids have been on U.S. roads for five years and we're not aware of any personal injury in the U.S. related to hybrid or EV electrical systems." –- Dave Zellers, Toyota vice president of quality and service support

-- Brian

[Garrett Lowell]

Manufacturing the batteries isn't as serious a concern as you pretend.

All cars are manufactured, and all contain parts that are made from chemicals. I'm not convinced that making batteries is any worse than making catalytic converters, brake pads or ABS dashboards.

Disoposing of them isn't a terrible concern either. Return them to the manufacturer for recycling. Not significantly worse than used engine oil. At least it's contained and not spewed all over the atmosphere.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that the best solution is to increase the mpg of all cars -- or perhaps just the worst offenders. If your boat is sinking, the smart thing to do is to plug the big holes first. No sense in worrying about the small holes first.

I pretend nothing. I'm only pointing out that this additional manufacturing component does carry it's own energy penalties and environmental impact. Do you disagree? Or do you believe they're made using PFM.

[Bruce Hooke]

It should be obvious that the best way to cut the amount of gasoline we use as a nation is to deal with the worst vehicles first. The gas saved by switching from a vehicle that averages 16 mpg to a car that gets 24 mpg is the same as the gas saved by switching from a car that gets 24 mpg to a car that gets 48 mpg. So, the best solution on a collective level is to get everyone into somewhat more efficient vehicles rather than a few people into high-efficiency vehicles.

However, individuals cannot make the country change. As individuals all we can do is look at our own choices...

[chrisk]

One of the things that hasn't been calculated in here is money you get back from resale of the vehicle. Do you think you'll be able to sell your hybrid for a higher price then the non-hybrid when it comes time for a new vehicle ?

I have no idea myself if hybrids will have a higher resale value in the future but it should be considered when doing a cost comparison.

[Garrett Lowell]

I did take that into consideration, but there's no information avaible with which to compare.

Resale is never an issue with me, anyway. I buy a car and then drive it into oblivion. Resale is rarely a possibility.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Oh, and, if you want to save the world ... get a VW diesel ... better mileage than hybrids ... and LESS expensive ...

I'm with Brad. Two years ago I rented a 2L peugeot 206 turbo diesel in Europe. On a trip from France to Austria on freeways we got 3.5L/100k with three people in the car (over 60mpg).

The fuel consumption computer made a big difference, but we still cruised at 120K/h (about 72mph)

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Now he qualifies for the express lanes on the freeways and cuts his daily commute times in half.

It's not all about MPG and gasoline money saved, Garret.

When it comes to "bang for the buck" in the fuel department, though, my 1981 Rabbit Diesel equipped to burn salvaged vegetable oil is realy hard to beat.

Moby Nick

[Dan McCosh]

Now he qualifies for the express lanes on the freeways and cuts his daily commute times in half.

It's not all about MPG and gasoline money saved, Garret.

When it comes to "bang for the buck" in the fuel department, though, my 1981 Rabbit Diesel equipped to burn salvaged vegetable oil is realy hard to beat.

Moby Nick

The Rabbit only pollutes about as much as 1000 Prius hybrids.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

I do know that "plants can capture 100% of the CO2 emmissions from burning renuable fuels".

"The crops used to make vegetable oil (soy beans, rape seeds, peanuts, etc) needed to produce a gallon of vegetable oil fuel will absorb EXACTLY the same CO2 as a gallon of vegetable oil will emit when burned in an engine."

Both quotes from FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK.

The black smoke emmitted from oil-fueled diesel busses is not as bad as it appears. The carbon will drop to the ground. The CO2 will be converted by plants.

CO2 is different from CO.

Got news for you Dan. I cannot afford a Prius. The money saved driving my old Rabbit diesel SVO around town and for short trips more than pays for the gasoline it takes to tow my sailboat over the road with a V-8 Silverado. Our last trip out with the boat was 4200 miles from Illinois to Britisah Columbia and back.

Moby Nick

[Garrett Lowell]

I nearly bought a used Golf TDI, a 2005 manual-shift. But VW's rating in consumer reports is so bad that I couldn't take the chance.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Body engineering may fall a bit short, but then I've NEVER been a slave to Consumer Reports magazine.

They often don't test for the thinks that make some products attractive to me.

Consumer Reports was shilling for Honda back when one of the worst "rust buckets" on the road was the Honda Civic.

Moby Nick

[carioca1232001]

For whatever reaason, the US is providing incentive for consumers to buy hybrid vehicles, whose only virtue, apart from gimmick value, is regenerative braking in stop-go driving

High-tech, unmatched fuel-efficiency, low-polluting, high power-to -weight 2 to 4 litre European diesels are virtually taking over the engine market in the old continent.

US legislation keeps these unbeatable (literally) diesels out of the market, typical cases being the VW Passat and VW Touareg.

It seems to me to be more rooted in politics and vested interests, than pollution legislation.

As for Moby Nick´s VW Rabbit diesel running on veggie, my congratulations ! If this engine is an older one, and not one of these modern high-pressure rail types, it should pollute more than a petrol one. Veggie fuel may worsen it just a little.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

gasoline-fueled Excursion, or a Surburban, or a Chrysler 300, Or a Jeep Wrangler?

Moby Nick

[David Tabor (sailordave)]

And a Porsche does?

Hey, I got 28 mpg last summer on a road trip in my 86! Usually get 21 or so around town. Beats the hell out of 12 mpg in my F250



http://www.myboatyard.homestead.com/files/86targa_.jpg

[carioca1232001]

Quoting Moby Nick:

"So how much worse is an "old" 1.6L Rabbit diesel than a ..."

In actual fact, could be marginally better, or worse, but nothing to be grinding bones about.

However, older European diesels are no match for the modern diesels, both pollution-wise, in terms of fuel-efficiency and engine noise. Additionally, modern diesels are at least on par with petrol engines, if not better, in terms of pollution.

But palming off this hybrid solution to the consumers instead of the modern high-tech, common-rail turbo-diesel, could have something to do with catering to the happiness of a great deal more auto-industry and petroleum barons.

Maybe it is worth re-reading GK Galbraith´s "The Consumer Society", especially the bit about merely stamping-out a "power-bulge" on the bonnet of an existing model of car, to address next-year´s high-power offering !

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Gasoline engines emit CO. Diesel engines emit CO2.

None of this is new.

CO2 is easier for nature to deal with. Where is the problem?

Moby Nick

[Dan McCosh]

I do know that "plants can capture 100% of the CO2 emmissions from burning renuable fuels".

"The crops used to make vegetable oil (soy beans, rape seeds, peanuts, etc) needed to produce a gallon of vegetable oil fuel will absorb EXACTLY the same CO2 as a gallon of vegetable oil will emit when burned in an engine."

Both quotes from FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK.

The black smoke emmitted from oil-fueled diesel busses is not as bad as it appears. The carbon will drop to the ground. The CO2 will be converted by plants.

CO2 is different from CO.

Got news for you Dan. I cannot afford a Prius. The money saved driving my old Rabbit diesel SVO around town and for short trips more than pays for the gasoline it takes to tow my sailboat over the road with a V-8 Silverado. Our last trip out with the boat was 4200 miles from Illinois to Britisah Columbia and back.

Moby Nick

This is a pretty good summary of what is happening when CO2 is defined as the worst environmental problem we face. The 1982 Rabbit diesel has virtually no emission controls--no catalyst, and a fuel injection system that pumps lots of excess fuel much of the time. That fuel dumps out the exhaust as soot and unburned stuff such as carbon monoxide. The high combustion temperatures produce nitrogen dioxide--which is the brown stuff you see hanging in the air over some cities. It is fuel-efficient, but the idea that the carcinogenic soot drops to the ground is the same argument that used to be use with tetraethyl lead, which also dropped to the ground.
The first round of emission standards cut these emissions by 99%, then the remaining 1% was cut by another 99%. That's a modern, clean-running car--hence the 1000X remark. If reducing CO2 is a reasonable exchange, then I really don't get it.
More modern diesels make the first cutoff, but still are much worse in NOx production than gas engines--and the PZEV category, exclusive to gasoline engines, is the cleanest of all.
All this is the reason why diesels will have to meet gas standards by 2010--which will also cut into their fuel efficiency. i'm waiting for the GW reaction to that one.

[Matt J.]

Dan, sincere question:
I purchased a '95 Land Rover. I bought it to convert to bio-diesel, based on conversations with shops that specialize in this. Everything I've read suggests that bio-diesel is the cleanest burning fuel currently available. If I recall correctly, most pollutants are reduced significantly with bio-diesel (except NO2 which is reduced little).

I really don't want to hear I screwed the pooch on this purchase. I think my reasoning is good: I need a vehicle such as this for business - no choice in that - and I think this is a more responsible option than even a newer Expedition, F250 diesel, Tahoe, etc, which I simply can not afford.

[carioca1232001]

Do you recall when supersonic air travel was born in the way of the Anglo-French Concorde ? Appropriate name it was ... these two nations had come together to build a milestone in passeneger aviation.

It was denied landing rights in the US at the airports it was designed to make a living !

Reasons ? Engine noise, plus sonic boom, and eating up ozone levels in the atmosphere.Yes, but open to (penniless!) bureaucrats in Washington.

Smothered in the crib, is one way of looking at it.

The same way for the modern European - and incidentally, Japanese too - diesel engine.

Wake up !

[LeeG]

ok,,anyone still think increasing the tax on gas to increase energy efficient technologies and change consumption patterns is necessary or will we wait until the next Katrina or war caused disruption pretending market forces are adequate preperation for Peak Oil?

Or do we still pretend our military presence in the middle east is for spreading democracy.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Since my old 1981 Plymouth Horizon (carburatored gasoline) has a catalytic converter, I assumed my 1981 Rabbit did also.

However, I see in my Haynes Book that it does not.

(Psst! Don't tell anyone, but I'm gonna drive it anyway!)

Moby Nick

[carioca1232001]

Thank heavens, you seem to have woken up !

[Dan McCosh]

Dan, sincere question:
I purchased a '95 Land Rover. I bought it to convert to bio-diesel, based on conversations with shops that specialize in this. Everything I've read suggests that bio-diesel is the cleanest burning fuel currently available. If I recall correctly, most pollutants are reduced significantly with bio-diesel (except NO2 which is reduced little).

I really don't want to hear I screwed the pooch on this purchase. I think my reasoning is good: I need a vehicle such as this for business - no choice in that - and I think this is a more responsible option than even a newer Expedition, F250 diesel, Tahoe, etc, which I simply can not afford.

I'm not sure about that specific model. Bio-diesel is being used to describe both the reclaimed vegetable oil from fast-food restaurants, and diesel fuel synthesized from organic sources. Both theoretically are carbon-nuetral, based on the idea that the plants remove the CO2 from the atmosphere that is released when the fuel is consumed.
For regulated emissions, both are usually zero-sulfur, which reduces particulates. I would think that they would be about the same as petroleum diesel for the rest of the emission control system, including EGR, and catalytic reduction of HC.
The main drawback has been the lack of standards for biodiesel, which can mean the fuel can be excellent, or lousy, regarding such things as cetane ratings, extraneous crud, or lubricity. That's why few manufacturers will warranty an engine using biodiesel. This is changing quickly, however, and most new engines have some kind of allowance for biodiesel. Dunno if any of this helps, but the main thing I would be concerned about is the impact on maintenance, which can get quite costly.

[Dan McCosh]

Gasoline engines emit CO. Diesel engines emit CO2.

None of this is new.

CO2 is easier for nature to deal with. Where is the problem?

Moby Nick

The difference in emission controls is not so much fuel, but the way it combusts in the engine. A diesel runs with a far leaner mixture than a gas engine, which contributes to its fuel efficiency. It also runs at a hotter combustion temperature, which is how NOx is formed. It is mainly the NOx that is the problem with diesels. Gas engines combine the unburned fuel and NOx in the catalyst, where the pollutants are reduced to water and CO2. The mix doesn't work in a diesel, as there is too much NOx. Diesel fuel also has a high carbon content, which is spit out as visible soot in some engines, but can be contained via various traps.

[carioca1232001]

"Diesel fuel also has a high carbon content, which is spit out as visible soot in some engines, but can be contained via various traps."

What is the spec, if any, for automotive diesels in the US ?

Euro I, II or..... III ?

[carioca1232001]

".............................Diesel fuel also has a high carbon content, which is spit out as visible soot in some engines, but can be contained via various traps."

What is the spec, if any, for automotive diesels in the US ?

Euro I, II or..... III ?

[Brian Palmer]

Nicholas,

Diesel engines emit CO, as well as CO2. All engines do. All combustion processes do, some just more than others.

A major problem with catalytic converters and diesel was that the diesel fuel contained higher levels of sulfur than regular gasoline. The sulfur would "poison" the catalyst. So, in order to use a catalytic converter on diesels, the fuel companies first had to come up with low-sulfur fuels. Allowable sulfur levels were reduced from 500 ppm to 15 ppm.

This has now been mandated by the U.S. EPA and newer diesel engines for trains, trucks, cars, boats, and heavy equipment will be required to use low sulfur fuels and, in some applications, catalytic converters for cleaner air.

Diesel engines are also a large contributor of fine particulate matter, known as PM-2.5, meaning it is less than 2.5 microns in diameter. This fine PM is able to permanently lodge in the smallest air sacks in the lungs, making it a significant public health concern. The compounds that are found in diesel soot are also known to be carcingens, including polycyclic aromatic hyrdocarbons. They are not just "carbon" or "soot."

If you want more information, go to epa.gov, and search for "diesel."

-- Brian

[LisaS]

I went from a 12 mpg Tahoe this summer to a 45 mpg Beetle TDI and I'm glad I did. I drive 100 miles per day as a daily commute, and the savings in fuel cost alone has been nothing short of phenomenal.

Lisa

[brad9798]

Dan McCosh, etc.

There was a rather large meeting of EMT's police and firefighters about two weeks ago here ... IIRC ... Google St. Louis Post-Dispatch ... it should be in the archives.

Brad

[Dan McCosh]

"Diesel fuel also has a high carbon content, which is spit out as visible soot in some engines, but can be contained via various traps."

What is the spec, if any, for automotive diesels in the US ?

Euro I, II or..... III ?


US specs for diesels starting in 2010 are 6X more stringent than the Euro 5 standard. NOx standards currently are about the same as Euro 5--which I think starts up in 2010. The trend in Europe has been to evalute the best available technology for diesel emissions, and then set the standards to that level. In the US, particularly in California, they have been evaluating the available technology and then setting standards that can't be met with what is currently available--assuming it will come along some day. The net effect has been more or less a ban on diesels.

[Dan McCosh]

Dan McCosh, etc.

There was a rather large meeting of EMT's police and firefighters about two weeks ago here ... IIRC ... Google St. Louis Post-Dispatch ... it should be in the archives.

Brad

I've seen lots of stuff about EMT groups speculating about problems with hybrids. There also was a bogus story in Car and Driver recently about the subject. I thought you were referring to an series of actual accidents where someone locally was hurt.

[Brian Palmer]

http://www.dfs.dps.mo.gov/July%202006%20Newsletter.pdf

Here's a link to a Missouri government fire safety newsletter from this past July. See the discussion of hybrids on page 10. Discussion of safety precautions and resources available, but no mention of first responders actually getting hurt.

Think they would say something if it had happened to fire fighters or others?

-- Brian

[brad9798]

I thought I was, Dan Mc., but I may have been mistaken ... I've been know to misunderstand a few things! :)

[Dan McCosh]

I thought I was, Dan Mc., but I may have been mistaken ... I've been know to misunderstand a few things! :)

I just thought maybe something was happening outside of the corporate position on this. The cars do have high voltage batteries, which have numerous safety cutoffs, etc. Doesn't mean that they work all the time.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

We EAT the stuff every day!

My 1981 (not 1982) Rabbit diesel burns vegetable approx 70% of the time, and Petroleum diesel 30% of the time.

Under ideal conditions (a long trip) it could go a thousand miles on a standard Rabbit tank of petrol-diesel, used only for starting, warmup, and shutting down the engine.

Moby Nick

[carioca1232001]

Moby Nick,

Do you pre-process your veggie prior to tipping it into the tank, or is it available already pre-processed ? Apparently, you need to at least filter and precipitate the frying left-overs.

The big soya-oil farmers in this country run diesel-engined farm machinery with soya-oil directly off the press. No special adjustments on the injection system or engine, nor any procesing of the soya-oil. But within 1500 hours of heavy-duty farm service, the soya-oil fed engines get knackered beyond economical repair.

Petroleum-derived diesel allows for a service life of more than double the quoted figure, but farmers prefer to operate autonomously.

[Garrett Lowell]

It seems that the EPA mileage tests were a bit out of date-by a mere 19 years. The mileage tests are based on emissions data. How many times have the emissions requirements changed in the past 19 years, I wonder? Apparently the numbers were very kind to hybrid cars-but not at all accurate. EPA states that their numbers are off by 12.5-25% for recent cars. In 2008, the EPA mileage estimates are going to be changed. Here's the link you can use to check your car's EPA mileage against the 2008 numbers-http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp

Check out the hybrid's numbers. Quite a difference, no?

[Brian Palmer]

OK, so with the new EPA method the Prius gets 46 and the yaris gets 32 mpg. Still almost 50% more mpg than the Yaris.

I am not saying that you will get your money back on gas savings by buying a Prius, but if high mpg is the kind of "performance" for which you are willing to pay extra, then the Prius is still a good car.

Our Prius was about $22,000. You can pay a lot more for the same size car that doesn't get as good mileage, and is not even smart enough to shut down the gas engine when it is not moving, but goes a lot faster (if that were legal) or accellerates faster, handles like a true sprots car, etc. Or, you can pay a lot less and get a car this is a lot better for the environment than most SUVs and big luxury cars.

You are free to choose whatever car matches your priorities and pocketbook.

-- Brian

[High C]

OK, so with the new EPA method the Prius gets 46 and the yaris gets 32 mpg. Still almost 50% more mpg than the Yaris...

Improving a 32 MPG car by 50% saves very little fuel in real gallons.

Instead we should focus these efforts on larger cars and trucks. Isn't the goal to reduce fuel consumption? Doing it with tiny cars is easy, and almost irrelevant.

Edited to add: I own a VW Golf diesel, and a Chevy Suburban. I put 90% of my miles on the Golf to save fuel. Few of my neighbors have ponied up for an extra car that gets killer mileage as I have. They drive big miles on their Suburbans still. If the same focus (diesel, hybrid) was applied to Suburbans and the size cars people actually need and use, we could save some serious fuel.

[Garrett Lowell]

My point, Brian, is that it's a long way from 61mpg to 46 mpg. Given those numbers, it's virtually impossible (for me) to justify the additional cost of a hybrid. So yes, I'd love to pay $8500.00 less for a car that gets only 36 mpg on the highway, vs. 46 mpg on the highway.

High, until emissions requirements are tightened dramatically on diesel engines here in the states, I think a diesel hybrid is a ways off. Given our current diesel emissions standards, a diesel hybrid would lose it's PZEV rating.

[Katherine]

Kind of funny how you guys percieve the EPA standards as bible.

[Brian Palmer]

I agree, improving efficiency of SUV's would reduce overall fuel consumption more quickly than improving efficiency of small cars, like the Camry and Civic.

But, that is where Toyota and Honda figured they would be best able to first sell the technology, especially in Japan, where it was first sold and where SUVs are not very common. And they were right. The hybrids were bought by folks who were already driving small efficient cars. They were comfortable with that size car.

A car with 45 or 50 or 55 mpg also seems more impressive than one with 30 mpg (even if it is an SUV). People are not used to seeing anything with that kind of mileage. But, now you can get an SUV (the Highlander or Escape) as a hybrid.

The small hybrids are a good start in the right direction, and the car companies focused them on the people likely to buy them.

-- Brian

[Brian Palmer]

Kind of funny how you guys percieve the EPA standards as bible.

Definitely not the bible, but the new method is better than the old method. It is based on actual mileage ratings from car reviewers and other real-world sources, not an EPA method on a test track. The new combined values for the Prius and Matrix are pretty close to what we get with our Prius and what I used to get from our Corrolla.

What I can't figure is why everyone expects the hybrid feature to pay for itself, and imply that all people who buy it are deluding themselves that it makes economic sense. If everyone purchased cars based purely on economics, there would never be a Corvette or a Cadillac. Most cars are basically just transportation, and expensive at that.

-- Brian

[Rick Tyler]

And a Porsche does? If cars were about economic sense - we'd all be driving the same thing

You are right. A hybrid car is just another piece of automotive jewelry. The message is that "I'm green, you pig." If you want to be truly green, by the way, get rid of all your cars and walk or ride a bike. Anything else is just a different point on the "rape the earth" continuum.

[Nels]

Back in the early 80's I drove a Nissan Sentra 5-speed. I got a legitimate 45 mpg on the highway, 35-38 around town. Why do we think Hybrids are sucha big deal now? They barely do as well as my old Nissan. 25 years ago we had cars that got better mileage and were simpler to build and repair. How did we lose that? And why do we think that 40+ mpg today is good mileage?

[George Roberts]

"They barely do as well as my old Nissan."

Cleaner air cost something. For a while that cost was lower fuel economy.

My wife's Camry gets 32mpg on the highway with a full load. It gets 37mpg with a light load. I suspect the new EPA numbers are going to be of less value than the current numbers.

[Garrett Lowell]

Nels, was that a diesel? I don't see any ratings for a Nissan Sentra in that range except for the diesel model.

Regardless, what happened is 'safety'. All of these safeguards add weight.

[Nels]

My Sentra: '82 hatchback, 1.5 liter, four cylinder, 5-speed, GAS engine

[High C]

In the early days of MPG ratings, the mileage figures posted on window stickers were wildly optimistic. A huge adjustment in methodology was made to bring those estimates down closer to reality, but I don't recall when, mid 80s maybe?

Cars used to be much lighter too. I once had a 1980 Dodge Colt, really a Mitsubishi, that weighed a little under 2,000 lbs. My similarly sized 2004 VW Golf weighs over 3000! Safety equipment, crumple zones, fancy bumpers, side door reinforcement, that stuff is heavy. Clean exhaust takes a small hit on MPG as well.

[LeeG]

one thing that's interesting is that cars weigh more, accelerate better and get the same mileage. Obviously all it takes is gas to go up in price and the mileage will go up with acceleration and/or weight going down.

But there's no reason to change things with prices at $2.50/gal.

I'd like the equivalent of those light 70's imports again. I'm thinking of 70's Toyota pickup with composite materials and metals with a 100hp turbo diesel.

[Dan McCosh]

one thing that's interesting is that cars weigh more, accelerate better and get the same mileage. Obviously all it takes is gas to go up in price and the mileage will go up with acceleration and/or weight going down.

But there's no reason to change things with prices at $2.50/gal.

I'd like the equivalent of those light 70's imports again. I'm thinking of 70's Toyota pickup with composite materials and metals with a 100hp turbo diesel.


All this is true, but the main problem with taxing your way fuel efficiency is that fuel only ranks third in terms of the cost of ownership of a car. First is depreciation, then insurance. To get fuel to look expensive enough to strongly influence a new-car purchase it would probably have to cost more on an an annualized basis than a new car--a very steep burden on the 90% of the population that can't afford a new car to begin with. Getting rid of the US CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) regulations and replacing them with more directly regulated fuel economy is the way to go.

[Dan McCosh]

In the early days of MPG ratings, the mileage figures posted on window stickers were wildly optimistic. A huge adjustment in methodology was made to bring those estimates down closer to reality, but I don't recall when, mid 80s maybe?

Cars used to be much lighter too. I once had a 1980 Dodge Colt, really a Mitsubishi, that weighed a little under 2,000 lbs. My similarly sized 2004 VW Golf weighs over 3000! Safety equipment, crumple zones, fancy bumpers, side door reinforcement, that stuff is heavy. Clean exhaust takes a small hit on MPG as well.

The window sticker mileage was adjusted several times, and will take a large dive this year. Hybrids in particlular will see a drop in advertised mileage of about 20%.

I don't remember the Colt as being the same size as the current Golf, particularly in interior room. Some of the safety equipment adds weight, but most models grew substantially in size, power, and structural rigidity, which was where the weight came from.

There's also a nostalgia element here. The VW Beetle only got about 25 mpg most of the time--it was a very inefficient engine, with little power, and a gas hog for its size.

[George Roberts]

"To get fuel to look expensive enough to strongly influence a new-car purchase it would probably have to cost more on an an annualized basis than a new car--a very steep burden on the 90% of the population that can't afford a new car to begin with."

Based on my wife's car and usage - gas would need to be over $10/gallon.

Even at that price she would not change her behavior. Any alternative would cost as much.

---

Being poor is indeed a burden.

[Sam F]

We EAT the stuff every day!

My 1981 (not 1982) Rabbit diesel burns vegetable approx 70% of the time, and Petroleum diesel 30% of the time.

Under ideal conditions (a long trip) it could go a thousand miles on a standard Rabbit tank of petrol-diesel, used only for starting, warmup, and shutting down the engine.

Moby Nick

Fact is there is currently no perfect solution, unless you want to live like the Amish. Btw, I've been mistaken for Amish, but they always have better haircuts. :D

So what you've done Nick is a pretty good choice given the available technology. Renewable fuel (mostly) and really good MPG. It's more than a good step. It's several steps in the right direction!

[High C]

...I don't remember the Colt as being the same size as the current Golf, particularly in interior room...

That old Colt may have been a hair smaller than the Golf on the inside, but they're very close. It did have a cool transmission, a 4 speed with a second lever for shifting between two different final drive ratios.

Some of the extra weight of my Golf is in its diesel engine, a hundred some pounds, IIRC.

I know which one I'd rather have a wreck in.

[Dan McCosh]

That old Colt may have been a hair smaller than the Golf on the inside, but they're very close. It did have a cool transmission, a 4 speed with a second lever for shifting between two different final drive ratios.

Some of the extra weight of my Golf is in its diesel engine, a hundred some pounds, IIRC.

I know which one I'd rather have a wreck in.

That transmission effectively made for seven speeds, as I remember. The problem was you had to use two hands on the shift levers every other shift. That meant steering with your knees--which could sometimes made it difficult to make subtle corrections in a four-wheel drift.

[High C]

:D .