2009 Prius - why such a big engine?
cr113
From what I've read the new Prius is going to be bigger and faster and
get slightly better fuel mileage. I don't understand this. Why do they
need a 1.8 L engine? That's bigger than most gas only economy cars. I
would think they could use a 1 L engine or even smaller. Do you really
need to go 115 mph in a Prius? If they used a smaller engine and kept
the car the same size they could sell it for less and get much better
mileage. Am I missing something?
http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/563/exposed-2009-toyota-prius/
Ron Peterson
> http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/563/expos...
It's a matter of getting adequate acceleration. The mpg rating hasn't
decreased and the cost hasn't increased.
--
Ron
Lou
"Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:38c82629-1d11-4cfb...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
I'd guess an additional reason could have to do with what the battery pack
is capable of. During a long climb uphill, the battery could be assisting
the gas engine, and I can easily imagine that it could be drained leaving
you with only a rather underpowered gas engine until the battery has
recharged.
max
<7af02de6-e50f-4190...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
cr113 <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bigger. Quicker. Better mileage. Lower Cost.
you seem to be missing quite a bit.
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"cr113" <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7af02de6-e50f-4190...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
George
Since it takes a while to design and implement designs that choice was
likely made before recent high fuel prices. Consider that megaclueless
GM was still pushing big, piggy, fuel sucking fluffed up trucks to be
used as "cars" until last week.
My buddy just bought a Smartcar (made by Daimler) which has only
recently been offered in the US. They have a 0.7 liter gas engine every
where else they are sold and were fitted with a 1.0 liter engine for the
US version.
The dealer said they also have a even much more fuel efficient diesel
version but were concerned about bringing that version in because it
would be perceived as underpowered.
George
> In article
> <7af02de6-e50f-4190...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> cr113 <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From what I've read the new Prius is going to be bigger and faster and
>> get slightly better fuel mileage. I don't understand this. Why do they
>> need a 1.8 L engine? That's bigger than most gas only economy cars. I
>> would think they could use a 1 L engine or even smaller. Do you really
>> need to go 115 mph in a Prius? If they used a smaller engine and kept
>> the car the same size they could sell it for less and get much better
>> mileage. Am I missing something?
>>
>> http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/563/exposed-2009-t
>> oyota-prius/
>
> Bigger. Quicker. Better mileage. Lower Cost.
>
> you seem to be missing quite a bit.
>
James
> cr113 wrote:
> > From what I've read the new Prius is going to be bigger and faster and
> > get slightly better fuel mileage. I don't understand this. Why do they
> > need a 1.8 L engine? That's bigger than most gas only economy cars. I
> > would think they could use a 1 L engine or even smaller. Do you really
> > need to go 115 mph in a Prius? If they used a smaller engine and kept
> > the car the same size they could sell it for less and get much better
> > mileage. Am I missing something?
>
>
> Since it takes a while to design and implement designs that choice was
> likely made before recent high fuel prices. Consider that megaclueless
> GM was still pushing big, piggy, fuel sucking fluffed up trucks to be
> used as "cars" until last week.
>
> My buddy just bought a Smartcar (made by Daimler) which has only
> recently been offered in the US. They have a 0.7 liter gas engine every
> where else they are sold and were fitted with a 1.0 liter engine for the
> US version.
>
> The dealer said they also have a even much more fuel efficient diesel
> version but were concerned about bringing that version in because it
> would be perceived as underpowered.
The Diesel version is what was introduced in Canada a few years back.
It is very efficient, but the acceleration isn't great. Its ok on the
highway as long as you don't need to pass anything. The new gas
version is much faster.
James
James
> From what I've read the new Prius is going to be bigger and faster and
> get slightly better fuel mileage. I don't understand this. Why do they
> need a 1.8 L engine? That's bigger than most gas only economy cars. I
> would think they could use a 1 L engine or even smaller. Do you really
> need to go 115 mph in a Prius? If they used a smaller engine and kept
> the car the same size they could sell it for less and get much better
> mileage. Am I missing something?
While both the electroc and gas engines can work together, you have to
plan for the "worst case" scenario where the car is running only on
gasoline. The Prius is larger than a Corolla or Matrix (which use 1.8
litre engines) and smaller than Camry (which has a 2.4 litre 4). So
in order to have a driving dynamic like the other cars, it needs a
1.8.
James
cr113
From what I understand unless the car is broke you're always going to
be capable of running on both when needed. Anytime the batteries are
low they get charged by the gas engine. The gas engine has plenty of
power to charge the battery except when you are accelerating, which
only lasts in short bursts.
cr113
> cr113 wrote:
> > From what I've read the new Prius is going to be bigger and faster and
> > get slightly better fuel mileage. I don't understand this. Why do they
> > need a 1.8 L engine? That's bigger than most gas only economy cars. I
> > would think they could use a 1 L engine or even smaller. Do you really
> > need to go 115 mph in a Prius? If they used a smaller engine and kept
> > the car the same size they could sell it for less and get much better
> > mileage. Am I missing something?
>
>
> Since it takes a while to design and implement designs that choice was
> likely made before recent high fuel prices.
Yep. I think you are right. This makes the most sense.
cr113
> My buddy just bought a Smartcar (made by Daimler) which has only
> recently been offered in the US. They have a 0.7 liter gas engine every
> where else they are sold and were fitted with a 1.0 liter engine for the
> US version.
I read that they only get 35 mpg highway. That's the same as a Corolla
which is like 3 times as big as a "smart" car!
Dave
"cr113" <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7af02de6-e50f-4190...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
You are missing the fact that it is a hybrid. That means it has batteries
and electric motors and other (very heavy) hardware that a non-hybrid
doesn't. Yes, the batteries and electric motors can provide some serious
torque to motivate the vehicle when the batteries are charged. When the
batteries get low though? All that extra hardware is extra weight. Think
of a 1.0L engine trying to push a prius loaded with (5) ~200 pound adults.
That's essentially what you have if the Prius has just one person (the
driver) in it, as the batteries and electric motors, etc., easily add many
hundreds of pounds of "curb weight" to the vehicle.
You don't get something for nothing. The extra hardware might improve fuel
economy somewhat, and definitely adds serious horsepower and torque. Too
bad much of the extra power is needed just to haul ITSELF, though.
On a side note though, I'd be inclined to buy a 1.0L Prius hybrid, if they
made such a thing. I wouldn't expect it to do better than about 55MPH
maximum on the highway with the (unassisted) gasoline IC engine, though.
And that would be fine with me. But tell the typical U.S. buyer that it'll
do 55MPH maximum? They'd laugh and walk away.
That is why the 1.8L engine. With all the extra hardware, 1.8L unassisted
will keep up (barely) with ~85MPH freeway traffic. -Dave
George
EPA says the Corolla is 29 mpg combined. He is getting 51 mpg with
mostly local driving. He is honest and also anal about measuring and
recording things accurately.
Rod Speed
> cr113 wrote
>>> My buddy just bought a Smartcar (made by Daimler) which has only
>>> recently been offered in the US. They have a 0.7 liter gas engine
>>> every where else they are sold and were fitted with a 1.0 liter
>>> engine for the US version.
>> I read that they only get 35 mpg highway. That's the same as a Corolla which is like 3 times as big as a "smart" car!
> EPA says the Corolla is 29 mpg combined. He is getting 51 mpg with mostly local driving.
Thats apples and oranges.
> He is honest and also anal about measuring and recording things accurately.
But his numbers are not comparable to the EPA numbers.
John Weiss
>
> Yes, the batteries and electric motors can provide some serious
> torque to motivate the vehicle when the batteries are charged. When the
> batteries get low though? All that extra hardware is extra weight.
> Think
> of a 1.0L engine trying to push a prius loaded with (5) ~200 pound
> adults.
The Prius is not limited in any normal operating mode to the gas engine
only.
> On a side note though, I'd be inclined to buy a 1.0L Prius hybrid, if
> they
> made such a thing.
You'll be able to buy the GM Volt next year, then.
> That is why the 1.8L engine. With all the extra hardware, 1.8L
> unassisted
> will keep up (barely) with ~85MPH freeway traffic.
The Prius currently keeps up with 85 mph freeway traffic with no problem
whatsoever.
cr113
> "cr113" <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7af02de6-e50f-4190...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > From what I've read the new Prius is going to be bigger and faster and
> > get slightly better fuel mileage. I don't understand this. Why do they
> > need a 1.8 L engine? That's bigger than most gas only economy cars. I
> > would think they could use a 1 L engine or even smaller. Do you really
> > need to go 115 mph in a Prius? If they used a smaller engine and kept
> > the car the same size they could sell it for less and get much better
> > mileage. Am I missing something?
>
> -toyota-prius/
>
> You are missing the fact that it is a hybrid. That means it has batteries
> and electric motors and other (very heavy) hardware that a non-hybrid
> doesn't. Yes, the batteries and electric motors can provide some serious
> torque to motivate the vehicle when the batteries are charged. When the
> batteries get low though? All that extra hardware is extra weight. Think
> of a 1.0L engine trying to push a prius loaded with (5) ~200 pound adults.
> That's essentially what you have if the Prius has just one person (the
> driver) in it, as the batteries and electric motors, etc., easily add many
> hundreds of pounds of "curb weight" to the vehicle.
>
> You don't get something for nothing. The extra hardware might improve fuel
> economy somewhat, and definitely adds serious horsepower and torque. Too
> bad much of the extra power is needed just to haul ITSELF, though.
>
> On a side note though, I'd be inclined to buy a 1.0L Prius hybrid, if they
> made such a thing. I wouldn't expect it to do better than about 55MPH
> maximum on the highway with the (unassisted) gasoline IC engine, though.
> And that would be fine with me. But tell the typical U.S. buyer that it'll
> do 55MPH maximum? They'd laugh and walk away.
>
> That is why the 1.8L engine. With all the extra hardware, 1.8L unassisted
> will keep up (barely) with ~85MPH freeway traffic. -Dave
Curb weight of a Corolla is 2822 lbs, Prius is 2932. Only slightly
heavier.
Top speed of the Prius with the 1.5 L gas engine is around 105 mph.
Personally I'd rather they left the performance the same and lowered
the price and raised the mpg. Instead they basically raised the
performance while keeping the price and mpg the same. I just get the
feeling they are still marketing this car as a gimmick for people who
want to make a statement about being "green". Not as a true "economy"
car.
timeOday
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, max wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <7af02de6-e50f-4190...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>> cr113 <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From what I've read the new Prius is going to be bigger and faster and
>>> get slightly better fuel mileage. I don't understand this. Why do they
>>> need a 1.8 L engine? That's bigger than most gas only economy cars. I
>>> would think they could use a 1 L engine or even smaller. Do you really
>>> need to go 115 mph in a Prius? If they used a smaller engine and kept
>>> the car the same size they could sell it for less and get much better
>>> mileage. Am I missing something?
>>>
>>> http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/563/exposed-2009-t
>>>
>>> oyota-prius/
>>
>> Bigger. Quicker. Better mileage. Lower Cost.
>>
>> you seem to be missing quite a bit.
>
> all about lately. Like getting there 3 minutes faster is some great
> accomplishment. One myth that all the folks who think hybrids are a fad
> believe, is that they "don't have enough power" and they think there's
> no power to get onto an expressway or to pass traffic. That's a bunch
> of hooey, but if they don't see 5000 horsepower engine, they think it's
> "underpowered". they want some kinda muscle hybrid that can do 0-60 in
> 6 seconds.
Going 0-60, getting on an onramp, and passing are all short-term bursts
of power that the electric motor can help with anyways! The only reason
for a larger engine is longer-term things like, I dunno, towing a boat
up a mountain.
Personally I would love to see a pure electric commuter car without the
weight of a gas engine which is good for 60 miles between recharges.
Many families own a car that's only (or 90%) used just for commuting.
But automakers seem convinced people won't buy a car unless it has
traditional range, so maybe it's true.
timeOday
Probably, but the nice thing about a hybrid though is you can run the
engine just at the RPM where it's most efficient until the battery is
charged, then turn off the engine and drive on battery alone. So if a
larger engine simply charges the battery that much quicker before
turning off, it might hardly be less efficient at all.
timeOday
I can't imagine a Corolla getting 51 mpg in the city though.
timeOday
> "Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote...
>> Yes, the batteries and electric motors can provide some serious
>> torque to motivate the vehicle when the batteries are charged. When the
>> batteries get low though? All that extra hardware is extra weight.
>> Think
>> of a 1.0L engine trying to push a prius loaded with (5) ~200 pound
>> adults.
>
> The Prius is not limited in any normal operating mode to the gas engine
> only.
As he said, the issue is when the battery gets low, on a long uphill
perhaps.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>> cr113 wrote
>>>> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>>> My buddy just bought a Smartcar (made by Daimler) which has only
>>>>> recently been offered in the US. They have a 0.7 liter gas engine
>>>>> every where else they are sold and were fitted with a 1.0 liter
>>>>> engine for the US version.
>>>> I read that they only get 35 mpg highway. That's the same
>>>> Corolla which is like 3 times as big as a "smart" car!
>>> EPA says the Corolla is 29 mpg combined. He is getting 51 mpg with mostly local driving.
>> Thats apples and oranges.
>>> He is honest and also anal about measuring and recording things accurately.
>> But his numbers are not comparable to the EPA numbers.
> I can't imagine a Corolla getting 51 mpg in the city though.
Neither can I.
I didnt mean that the Corolla is better than the new Prius,
just that you need more comparable figures for the maths.
Dennis
wrote:
The EPA numbers at www.fueleconomy.gov say 33 city/41 hiway/36
combined for the 2008 SmartFor2. With 22 owners reporting, the
individual numbers are 34 Low/47 Hi/38.5 Avg. So 51 city seems like a
stretch and certainly is not typical.
BTW, on straight gas (no ehtanol) I average 40 mpg on my mixed commute
with my 1998 Corolla. That is not typical either, but not quite so
radically different from the EPA numbers as your friend's experience.
Dennis (evil)
--
My output is down, my income is up, I take a short position on the long bond and
my revenue stream has its own cash flow. -George Carlin
Dave
> weight of a gas engine which is good for 60 miles between recharges.
> Many families own a car that's only (or 90%) used just for commuting.
> But automakers seem convinced people won't buy a car unless it has
> traditional range, so maybe it's true.
>
Of course. Average commute time is a half hour each way. An electric
vehicle with 60 mile range would be useless. Assuming your commute is
rather short, you could just make it to work and back on 60 miles. Now you
need about 12 hours to recharge the batteries. You walk in the door after
plugging in the car, and the wife asks you if you remembered to pick up a
gallon of milk on the way home. Ooooops.
60 mile range is just not flexible enough. An all-electric vehicle needs a
MUCH longer "range" than that of a similar vehicle with an IC engine. When
you run out of energy, it takes 12 hours to get it ready to drive again.
For an all-electric rechargeable vehicle, anything LESS than about 600 miles
of range is useless. You need to have the energy available for (as a
MINIMUM) an entire DAY of driving on a full charge. 60 miles? Not even
close.
In contrast, the range of an IC engine vehicle doesn't matter much. Gas
stations are everywhere, and it takes about 10 minutes to refuel, if you are
slow. But in an electric vehicle if your batteries die halfway home? Now
you are calling a tow truck. -Dave
Lou
"barbie gee" <boo...@nosespam.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.08...@sghcrg.sghcrg.pbz...
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, max wrote:
>
> > <7af02de6-e50f-4190...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> > cr113 <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From what I've read the new Prius is going to be bigger and faster and
> >> get slightly better fuel mileage. I don't understand this. Why do they
> >> need a 1.8 L engine? That's bigger than most gas only economy cars. I
> >> would think they could use a 1 L engine or even smaller. Do you really
> >> need to go 115 mph in a Prius? If they used a smaller engine and kept
> >> the car the same size they could sell it for less and get much better
> >> mileage. Am I missing something?
> >>
> >>
http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/563/exposed-2009-t
> >> oyota-prius/
> >
> > Bigger. Quicker. Better mileage. Lower Cost.
> >
> > you seem to be missing quite a bit.
>
> all about lately. Like getting there 3 minutes faster is some great
> accomplishment. One myth that all the folks who think hybrids are a fad
> believe, is that they "don't have enough power" and they think there's no
> power to get onto an expressway or to pass traffic. That's a bunch of
> hooey, but if they don't see 5000 horsepower engine, they think it's
> "underpowered". they want some kinda muscle hybrid that can do 0-60 in 6
> seconds.
So what? There's nothing intrinsically saintly about small - if the car
gets good mileage (and apparently it gets the best mileage around) and it
bolts forward and is roomy, I don't see how that's worse than having it
small, cramped, and sluggish.
Lou
"timeOday" <timeOda...@theknack.net> wrote in message
news:XtWdnXFhXZ1WzM3V...@comcast.com...
It's true for me. A car is an expensive proposition for most folks. It
seems extremely unlikely that owning two (one for long range trips and one
that CANNOT make a long range trip) would only be more expensive. 30 miles
one-way is not a long range trip in my book.
Lou
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:g2paak$rdo$2...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>
> On a side note though, I'd be inclined to buy a 1.0L Prius hybrid, if they
> made such a thing. I wouldn't expect it to do better than about 55MPH
> maximum on the highway with the (unassisted) gasoline IC engine, though.
> And that would be fine with me. But tell the typical U.S. buyer that
it'll
> do 55MPH maximum? They'd laugh and walk away.
And then, what happens when you turn on the air conditioning? Or even the
defroster fan?
On the local interstate, I routinely (but not quite always) set the cruise
control at 55 (that was the posted speed limit for years, done as a fuel
saving measure, and you know, it still works) and stay in the right lane.
But there are times when somebody abruptly changes lanes, or at entrance
ramps, when a little extra jolt of speed is needed.
I'd say that well over 99% of my driving time is at 55 mph or less, but no
way I'd buy a car that had a max speed of 55 without some huge compensating
factor in return, on the order of triple digit mileage per gallon. And
maybe not even then - the only feasible commuting routes for my wife and me
involve interstate type roads. I know, local roads exist, but with
intersections, stop signs, traffic lights, and unlimited access from
driveways, parking lots, etc. you're lucky to average 25 mph
Lou
If they've kept the price "the same" it seems to me that they've done all
three - after all with inflation the 20k-25k (or whatever a Prius costs) is
worth less this year than it was last year, and next year it'll be worth
less yet.
Lou
"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:AaCdne3YGqQkNNLV...@comcast.com...
Maybe "they" did the right thing, even if for the wrong reasons. Around
here, diesel costs even more than gasoline. At the local station, regular
was selling for $4.039/gallon while diesel was $4.739/gallon. That's a
price difference of better than 17%. At a couple of other nearby stations
the price difference is even greater. I don't know what kind of mileage a
diesel car gets, but last week I got 33.9 miles per gallon out of my regular
gas burning car in mixed city/highway driving. To make the price
differential worthwhile, I'd have to get close to 40 mpg to break even.
According to www.fueleconomy.gov, diesel cars "typically" get 30%-35% more
mile per gallon, but the mileage ratings for the Mercedes E-320 Bluetec (the
closest comparable diesel car, size-wise, I see to mine) top out at 32 mpg
highway. I guess it depends on what kind of mileage the diesel smart gets
compared to the gas smart.
I've read somewhere that the Smart car, so far, has been a money losing
business for the manufacturer. If the car is going to succeed, it needs to
turn a profit.
John Weiss
>
>> The Prius is not limited in any normal operating mode to the gas engine
>> only.
>
> As he said, the issue is when the battery gets low, on a long uphill
> perhaps.
Nope. Unless you think you have to hold the accelerator to the floor for
an extended period of time, you just won't get there. In 40 years of
driving, I have not come on such a situation...
Vic Smith
>> Personally I would love to see a pure electric commuter car without the
>> weight of a gas engine which is good for 60 miles between recharges.
>> Many families own a car that's only (or 90%) used just for commuting.
>> But automakers seem convinced people won't buy a car unless it has
>> traditional range, so maybe it's true.
>>
>
>Of course. Average commute time is a half hour each way. An electric
>vehicle with 60 mile range would be useless. Assuming your commute is
>rather short, you could just make it to work and back on 60 miles. Now you
>need about 12 hours to recharge the batteries. You walk in the door after
>plugging in the car, and the wife asks you if you remembered to pick up a
>gallon of milk on the way home. Ooooops.
>
Remember what average means. My wife commutes 5 miles each way, as I
did before I retired. My daughters commute is less than that and so
is my son's.
60 miles a day is plenty for us, including shopping/ appointments,
etc. Same for millions of people.
Need one of them big pickups? They sell plenty of them - or did.
I never bought one, and nobody has to buy the 60 mile a day car
either.
It could be made available, and there is a market for it.
I'd buy one as my next car, and use rentals for vacations.
As would millions of others. But gas probably has to hit about 10
bucks a gallon first. Market forces will drive it.
Big problem now is heating/cooling an electric. Could use gas
heaters like I had in one of my VW's.
A/C might require a 1-2 hp gas engine to power the A/C compressor.
Much smaller gas consumption overall than a hybrid.
I could forego A/C, as I did for the first dozen years of car
ownership. My car's A/C broke last summer in Florida and after a
couple days of feeling sorry for ourselves, guess what?
I adjusted to being without it. Mostly by realizing bitching and
moaning just made me think about hot it was, and by not driving when
the sun was high. Lucky my car is white.
Don't get me wrong. I like A/C. But I've always viewed it as
"almost" a luxury.
>60 mile range is just not flexible enough. An all-electric vehicle needs a
>MUCH longer "range" than that of a similar vehicle with an IC engine. When
>you run out of energy, it takes 12 hours to get it ready to drive again.
>For an all-electric rechargeable vehicle, anything LESS than about 600 miles
>of range is useless. You need to have the energy available for (as a
>MINIMUM) an entire DAY of driving on a full charge. 60 miles? Not even
>close.
>
Again, you don't have to buy it. Buy what suits you.
>In contrast, the range of an IC engine vehicle doesn't matter much. Gas
>stations are everywhere, and it takes about 10 minutes to refuel, if you are
>slow. But in an electric vehicle if your batteries die halfway home? Now
>you are calling a tow truck. -Dave
>
The future is electric cars, recharged by nuke generated power.
Standardized batteries, easily swapped at service/charging stations
hooked to the electric grid.
We would be there now if leadership had foresight and people weren't
so spoiled by cheap gas. Just part of the marketplace at work.
You'll see that more clearly when gas hits 10 bucks a gallon.
Maybe something else will be developed - hydrogen, etc, but I haven't
seen anybody holding up much promise for it yet.
--Vic
Dave
> The future is electric cars, recharged by nuke generated power.
You could be right. A combination of nuclear power plants and wind
farms, I believe.
> Standardized batteries, easily swapped at service/charging stations
> hooked to the electric grid.
I see a problem with that. I believe if we go that route, then it's
more likely that the chemical (which stores the electric charge) will
be changed quickly, not the whole battery. This would be a dangerous
operation, but probably LESS dangerous than refueling an IC engine
vehicle is today.
Think of a standard "gas pump" type of drive-up island. Each pump has
two hoses with secure connectors (standardized) of different size/shape
so that they can't be reversed. One is in and one is out. Chemical is
sucked out of battery to be recharged later. Then chemical (charged) is
pumped into battery. Could be done VERY quickly in a closed circuit,
unlike the gravity filling of gasoline tanks which must be regulated to
a slow refill rate. Once the connections are made and the pump sensors
confirm secure connection, probably 30 seconds to drain and another 30
seconds to refill. Oh, and your debit card is autmatically charged 30
bucks or whatever. -Dave
cr113
wrote:
> The future is electric cars, recharged by nuke generated power.
> Standardized batteries, easily swapped at service/charging stations
> hooked to the electric grid.
Yep.
> We would be there now if leadership had foresight and people weren't
> so spoiled by cheap gas. Just part of the marketplace at work.
> You'll see that more clearly when gas hits 10 bucks a gallon.
> Maybe something else will be developed - hydrogen, etc, but I haven't
> seen anybody holding up much promise for it yet.
That's one reason I really don't mind gas going so high. We'll finally
get some new technology. If you look at historic gas prices adjusted
for inflation, gas has been dirt cheap up until the last couple years.
I'm finally seeing car commercials that brag about mileage, not speed
and power.
Rod Speed
>> The future is electric cars, recharged by nuke generated power.
> You could be right.
I doubt it, mainly because of the problem with A/C in cars.
> A combination of nuclear power plants and wind farms, I believe.
If you have the nukes, there is no point in the massive environmental pollution that wind farms involve.
>> Standardized batteries, easily swapped at service/charging stations hooked to the electric grid.
> I see a problem with that. I believe if we go that route, then it's
> more likely that the chemical (which stores the electric charge)
> will be changed quickly, not the whole battery. This would be
> a dangerous operation, but probably LESS dangerous than
> refueling an IC engine vehicle is today.
Makes a lot more sense to swap the packaged battery.
> Think of a standard "gas pump" type of drive-up island. Each pump
> has two hoses with secure connectors (standardized) of different
> size/shape so that they can't be reversed. One is in and one is out.
> Chemical is sucked out of battery to be recharged later. Then
> chemical (charged) is pumped into battery. Could be done VERY
> quickly in a closed circuit, unlike the gravity filling of gasoline
> tanks which must be regulated to a slow refill rate. Once the
> connections are made and the pump sensors confirm secure connection,
> probably 30 seconds to drain and another 30 seconds to refill. Oh,
> and your debit card is autmatically charged 30 bucks or whatever.
Makes a lot more sense to swap the packaged battery.
Rod Speed
> Dave <no...@nohow.not> wrote
>>> Personally I would love to see a pure electric commuter car without
>>> the weight of a gas engine which is good for 60 miles between
>>> recharges. Many families own a car that's only (or 90%) used just
>>> for commuting. But automakers seem convinced people won't buy a car
>>> unless it has traditional range, so maybe it's true.
>> Of course. Average commute time is a half hour each way. An
>> electric vehicle with 60 mile range would be useless. Assuming your
>> commute is rather short, you could just make it to work and back on
>> 60 miles. Now you need about 12 hours to recharge the batteries.
>> You walk in the door after plugging in the car, and the wife asks
>> you if you remembered to pick up a gallon of milk on the way home.
>> Ooooops.
> Remember what average means. My wife commutes 5 miles each
> way, as I did before I retired. My daughters commute is less than
> that and so is my son's. 60 miles a day is plenty for us, including
> shopping/ appointments, etc. Same for millions of people.
Me too.
> Need one of them big pickups?
Nope, I prefer a trailer myself.
> They sell plenty of them - or did. I never bought one,
> and nobody has to buy the 60 mile a day car either.
> It could be made available, and there is a market for it.
> I'd buy one as my next car, and use rentals for vacations.
> As would millions of others. But gas probably has to hit
> about 10 bucks a gallon first. Market forces will drive it.
I doubt it will happen at $10.
> Big problem now is heating/cooling an electric.
Yep.
> Could use gas heaters like I had in one of my VW's.
Pity about the summer tho.
> A/C might require a 1-2 hp gas engine to power the A/C compressor.
> Much smaller gas consumption overall than a hybrid.
> I could forego A/C, as I did for the first dozen years of car ownership.
I doubt too many would tho.
> My car's A/C broke last summer in Florida and after a
> couple days of feeling sorry for ourselves, guess what?
> I adjusted to being without it. Mostly by realizing bitching
> and moaning just made me think about hot it was, and by
> not driving when the sun was high. Lucky my car is white.
I remember one holiday back in the days before A/C was in cars,
when the day was so stinking hot that we just stopped at a river
and jumped in and stayed there till the sun went down. Likely
would have been 110.
Another time my tounge was hanging out and I was anticipating
doing the same thing down the beach. Just arrived at the beach
and the front came thru |-(
> Don't get me wrong. I like A/C. But I've always viewed it as "almost" a luxury.
Sure, but so is any form of powered vehicle too.
>> 60 mile range is just not flexible enough. An all-electric vehicle
>> needs a MUCH longer "range" than that of a similar vehicle with
>> an IC engine. When you run out of energy, it takes 12 hours to
>> get it ready to drive again. For an all-electric rechargeable vehicle,
>> anything LESS than about 600 miles of range is useless. You need
>> to have the energy available for (as a MINIMUM) an entire DAY of
>> driving on a full charge. 60 miles? Not even close.
> Again, you don't have to buy it. Buy what suits you.
>> In contrast, the range of an IC engine vehicle doesn't matter much.
>> Gas stations are everywhere, and it takes about 10 minutes to
>> refuel, if you are slow. But in an electric vehicle if your
>> batteries die halfway home? Now you are calling a tow truck.
> The future is electric cars, recharged by nuke generated power.
I doubt it, mainly because the range is too limited for too
many. There will certainly be a considerable percentage
that use electric cars, but it wont ever be everyone.
You wont see semis electric for example and we wont
see all that volume back on electric trains either.
> Standardized batteries, easily swapped at service/
> charging stations hooked to the electric grid.
Sure.
> We would be there now if leadership had foresight
Nope, that cant do anything about the fundamentals.
> and people weren't so spoiled by cheap gas.
Any leadership has to operate within the current basics.
> Just part of the marketplace at work.
Yep, thats why we still use gasoline and will to
change to LPG etc before we change to electric.
> You'll see that more clearly when gas hits 10 bucks a gallon.
Not on going electric we wont.
> Maybe something else will be developed - hydrogen, etc, but
> I haven't seen anybody holding up much promise for it yet.
Just because it isnt viable at the current price of gasoline,
without the nukes which are the only viable way to produce it.
It does fix the A/C problem completely and the CO2 problem too.
Vic Smith
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A/C might require a 1-2 hp gas engine to power the A/C compressor.
>> Much smaller gas consumption overall than a hybrid.
>> I could forego A/C, as I did for the first dozen years of car ownership.
>
>I doubt too many would tho.
>
Yep. Funny how that works. Never paid any thought to A/C when I
didn't have it. Now it's an adjustment when it ain't there.
Same with color TV. Didn't have one until about 1980, when somebody
gave me one. Always picked up used B/W's cheap.
Now it's hard to imagine watching a B/W.
But the A/C issue can be fixed with a small gas engine. Complicates
things though. Now you need space for it and a gas tank.
But you needed the tank for the heater anyway.
>> My car's A/C broke last summer in Florida and after a
>> couple days of feeling sorry for ourselves, guess what?
>> I adjusted to being without it. Mostly by realizing bitching
>> and moaning just made me think about hot it was, and by
>> not driving when the sun was high. Lucky my car is white.
>
>I remember one holiday back in the days before A/C was in cars,
>when the day was so stinking hot that we just stopped at a river
>and jumped in and stayed there till the sun went down. Likely
>would have been 110.
>
>Another time my tounge was hanging out and I was anticipating
>doing the same thing down the beach. Just arrived at the beach
>and the front came thru |-(
>
Just got an email from my SIL in Iraq. It's 115 during the day and
they're wearing body armor. Now if my wife bitches about me not
turning on the A/C when it hits 80, I'll remind her of him.
Won't help, of course.
>> Don't get me wrong. I like A/C. But I've always viewed it as "almost" a luxury.
>
>Sure, but so is any form of powered vehicle too.
>
But they've pretty much been made essential here. When I lived in the
city and could bus to work it was different. Had a shopping cart and
we could walk to any number of stores too.
Carted the laundry to the laundromat too. None of that works out of
the city. I could do the walk, but I'd probably get killed by a car
along the road.
>
>> The future is electric cars, recharged by nuke generated power.
>
>I doubt it, mainly because the range is too limited for too
>many. There will certainly be a considerable percentage
>that use electric cars, but it wont ever be everyone.
>
The trick is to keep gas prices high. Otherwise there's no incentive.
to change. Tax policies can do it.
>You wont see semis electric for example and we wont
>see all that volume back on electric trains either.
>
You might see semis going back to gas when all the commuters go
electric. I'm not up on the different fuels that can be made from a
barrel of oil.
>> Standardizes`d batteries, easily swapped at service/
>> charging stations hooked to the electric grid.
>
>Sure.
>
>> We would be there now if leadership had foresight
>
>Nope, that cant do anything about the fundamentals.
>
Yeah, we wouldn't be to electric yet, but we would be well into a
transitional period. Stricter CAFE standards, gas guzzler taxation,
gov push for research, etc. Didn't work politically here.
You got the righties saying the gas is endless, and the lefties saying
nukes will make your balls fall off.
>> and people weren't so spoiled by cheap gas.
>
>Any leadership has to operate within the current basics.
>
The biggest basic here is "Don't tell me I can't drive a gas hog."
>> Just part of the marketplace at work.
>
>Yep, thats why we still use gasoline and will to
>change to LPG etc before we change to electric.
>
I've heard the power companies here have been building NG power plants
at a good pace. NG is just another finite petro source. My heating
bills are way up because the power companies are sucking up the NG.
If we go nuke the heating business will do well with retrofitting
homes for electric. Copper would be a good market play.
>> You'll see that more clearly when gas hits 10 bucks a gallon.
>
>Not on going electric we wont.
>
Depends on the bottom line cost of the power. With nuke power plants
and decent battery technology the crossover price point might be 2
dollars a gallon. That's aside from disadvantages of the electric.
Even now, at about 4 dollars a gallon for gas, it might be getting
close to where the electric rates beat gasoline in cost per mile.
I just pulled those numbers out of my arse so don't hold me to them.
>> Maybe something else will be developed - hydrogen, etc, but
>> I haven't seen anybody holding up much promise for it yet.
>
>Just because it isnt viable at the current price of gasoline,
>without the nukes which are the only viable way to produce it.
>
What's funny about the anti-nukes is they never look at all the
garbage use of fossil fuel puts in the air. Probably killing more
people every day than nukes have killed since they were invented.
--Vic
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> A/C might require a 1-2 hp gas engine to power the A/C compressor.
>>> Much smaller gas consumption overall than a hybrid.
>>> I could forego A/C, as I did for the first dozen years of car ownership.
>> I doubt too many would tho.
> Yep. Funny how that works. Never paid any thought to A/C
> when I didn't have it. Now it's an adjustment when it ain't there.
> Same with color TV. Didn't have one until about 1980, when
> somebody gave me one. Always picked up used B/W's cheap.
> Now it's hard to imagine watching a B/W.
And only a few loons are prepared to live in caves anymore.
> But the A/C issue can be fixed with a small gas engine.
> Complicates things though. Now you need space for it and
> a gas tank. But you needed the tank for the heater anyway.
>>> My car's A/C broke last summer in Florida and after a
>>> couple days of feeling sorry for ourselves, guess what?
>>> I adjusted to being without it. Mostly by realizing bitching
>>> and moaning just made me think about hot it was, and by
>>> not driving when the sun was high. Lucky my car is white.
>> I remember one holiday back in the days before A/C was in cars,
>> when the day was so stinking hot that we just stopped at a river
>> and jumped in and stayed there till the sun went down. Likely
>> would have been 110.
>> Another time my tounge was hanging out and I was anticipating
>> doing the same thing down the beach. Just arrived at the beach
>> and the front came thru |-(
> Just got an email from my SIL in Iraq. It's 115 during the day and they're wearing body armor.
Yeah, some of ours are stupid enough to work in the roofspace in weather like that.
> Now if my wife bitches about me not turning on the A/C
> when it hits 80, I'll remind her of him. Won't help, of course.
Swamp coolers work fine here. Not that great in a car tho.
>>> Don't get me wrong. I like A/C. But I've always viewed it as "almost" a luxury.
>> Sure, but so is any form of powered vehicle too.
> But they've pretty much been made essential here. When I lived
> in the city and could bus to work it was different. Had a shopping
> cart and we could walk to any number of stores too.
And in fact in the highest density citys cars arent that practical.
> Carted the laundry to the laundromat too. None of that works out of the
> city. I could do the walk, but I'd probably get killed by a car along the road.
We dont lose too many that way and there are hordes walking on the
roads now just for exercise. Its still mostly little kids that get run over.
>>> The future is electric cars, recharged by nuke generated power.
>> I doubt it, mainly because the range is too limited for too
>> many. There will certainly be a considerable percentage
>> that use electric cars, but it wont ever be everyone.
> The trick is to keep gas prices high. Otherwise there's
> no incentive. to change. Tax policies can do it.
But you dont get that effect in europe where the taxes are much higher.
You just get smaller cars used than in the US and few fluffed up trucks used as cars.
>> You wont see semis electric for example and we wont
>> see all that volume back on electric trains either.
> You might see semis going back to gas when all the commuters go electric.
Nope, diesel still rules the roost and always will do.
They might change to LPG.
> I'm not up on the different fuels that can be made from a barrel of oil.
You can make anything you like, just depends on how much energy you use to make a particular fuel.
>>> Standardizes`d batteries, easily swapped at service/
>>> charging stations hooked to the electric grid.
>> Sure.
>>> We would be there now if leadership had foresight
>> Nope, that cant do anything about the fundamentals.
> Yeah, we wouldn't be to electric yet, but we would be well into a transitional period.
Nope.
> Stricter CAFE standards, gas guzzler taxation, gov push for research, etc.
You dont need any research, its all been done and its just
waiting for the gasoline price to be high enough to make it viable.
> Didn't work politically here. You got the righties saying the gas is
> endless, and the lefties saying nukes will make your balls fall off.
Sure, but even with very gung ho politicians like the frogs,
the most you get is lots of nukes, you dont get electric cars.
>>> and people weren't so spoiled by cheap gas.
>> Any leadership has to operate within the current basics.
> The biggest basic here is "Don't tell me I can't drive a gas hog."
Nar, the biggest basic is that electric cars arent viable for most.
>>> Just part of the marketplace at work.
>> Yep, thats why we still use gasoline and will to
>> change to LPG etc before we change to electric.
> I've heard the power companies here have been building NG power plants
> at a good pace. NG is just another finite petro source. My heating bills
> are way up because the power companies are sucking up the NG.
Yeah, thats a stupid use of natural gas, essentially the result of the
mindless antinuke mentality that pervades north america currently.
> If we go nuke the heating business will do well with retrofitting
> homes for electric. Copper would be a good market play.
>>> You'll see that more clearly when gas hits 10 bucks a gallon.
>> Not on going electric we wont.
> Depends on the bottom line cost of the power.
Nope, the problem is the cost of electric vehicles with viable range.
> With nuke power plants and decent battery technology
> the crossover price point might be 2 dollars a gallon.
Nope, because of the cost of the batterys in the car.
> That's aside from disadvantages of the electric. Even now,
> at about 4 dollars a gallon for gas, it might be getting close
> to where the electric rates beat gasoline in cost per mile.
Like I said, the problem isnt the cost of the power,
its the cost of the batterys with a viable range.
> I just pulled those numbers out of my arse so don't hold me to them.
>>> Maybe something else will be developed - hydrogen, etc, but
>>> I haven't seen anybody holding up much promise for it yet.
>> Just because it isnt viable at the current price of gasoline,
>> without the nukes which are the only viable way to produce it.
> What's funny about the anti-nukes is they never look at all the
> garbage use of fossil fuel puts in the air. Probably killing more
> people every day than nukes have killed since they were invented.
Yeah, but that lot have never been able to manage basic facts like that.
Dennis
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Don't get me wrong. I like A/C. But I've always viewed it as "almost" a luxury.
>>
>>Sure, but so is any form of powered vehicle too.
>>
>But they've pretty much been made essential here. When I lived in the
>city and could bus to work it was different. Had a shopping cart and
>we could walk to any number of stores too.
>Carted the laundry to the laundromat too. None of that works out of
>the city. I could do the walk, but I'd probably get killed by a car
>along the road.
I recently read about a prototype hybrid vehicle that uses a solar
powered heat pump for A/C. Interesting idea -- the car can be already
cool when you get into it.
Dennis (evil)
--
I'm behind the eight ball, ahead of the curve, riding the wave,
dodging the bullet and pushing the envelope. -George Carlin
Lou
> On Jun 12, 11:00 am, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> The future is electric cars, recharged by nuke generated power.
>> Standardized batteries, easily swapped at service/charging stations
>> hooked to the electric grid.
>
> Yep.
Swapping battery packs seems problematic to me - everything degrades with
time. You buy a new car with a spanking new battery pack, drive it around a
day or two or three, and you need to recharge. Go to the local "filling"
station, out comes your new batteries, and you get in exchange a charged,
but older pack just about at the end of its useful life. Whups, you're out
a few thousand bucks.
SMS
> the price and raised the mpg. Instead they basically raised the
> performance while keeping the price and mpg the same. I just get the
> feeling they are still marketing this car as a gimmick for people who
> want to make a statement about being "green". Not as a true "economy"
> car.
Your first mistake is believing that the price they charge for the
Prius, or any vehicle for that matter, is directly related to the size
of the engine. The 1.8 l engine will not cost them any more than the
1.5l engine. Even if it did, the price is not determined by adding
together the cost of parts and labor then marking it up a fixed amount,
it's determined by what the market will pay for a particular vehicle.
Brian Elfert
>Swapping battery packs seems problematic to me - everything degrades with
>time. You buy a new car with a spanking new battery pack, drive it around a
>day or two or three, and you need to recharge. Go to the local "filling"
>station, out comes your new batteries, and you get in exchange a charged,
>but older pack just about at the end of its useful life. Whups, you're out
>a few thousand bucks.
The filling station would be responsible for replacement of failing
battery packs. Part of the fee would cover the replacement costs.
Kinda like a propane tank exchange program.
cr113
> > Personally I'd rather they left the performance the same and lowered
> > the price and raised the mpg. Instead they basically raised the
> > performance while keeping the price and mpg the same. I just get the
> > feeling they are still marketing this car as a gimmick for people who
> > want to make a statement about being "green". Not as a true "economy"
> > car.
>
> Your first mistake is believing that the price they charge for the
> Prius, or any vehicle for that matter, is directly related to the size
> of the engine. The 1.8 l engine will not cost them any more than the
> 1.5l engine.
I'm having a hard time believing that. All engine sizes cost the same
to manufacture?
> Even if it did, the price is not determined by adding
> together the cost of parts and labor then marking it up a fixed amount,
> it's determined by what the market will pay for a particular vehicle.
It's where the demand curve meets the supply curve. If Toyota can make
a Prius for less it will shift the supply curve to the left thus
reducing the price and increasing the quantity sold.
To understand the concept imagine if Toyota could build a Prius for
$100. Still think they'd be selling it for $21,000 to only a few
thousand people?
Rod Speed
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote
>>> Personally I'd rather they left the performance the same and lowered
>>> the price and raised the mpg. Instead they basically raised the
>>> performance while keeping the price and mpg the same. I just get the
>>> feeling they are still marketing this car as a gimmick for people
>>> who want to make a statement about being "green". Not as a true
>>> "economy" car.
>> Your first mistake is believing that the price they charge for the
>> Prius, or any vehicle for that matter, is directly related to the
>> size of the engine. The 1.8 l engine will not cost them any more
>> than the 1.5l engine.
> I'm having a hard time believing that.
You shouldnt.
> All engine sizes cost the same to manufacture?
No, but two engines which are identical otherwise except
the total capacity wont cost any more when they are so close.
>> Even if it did, the price is not determined by adding together the
>> cost of parts and labor then marking it up a fixed amount, it's
>> determined by what the market will pay for a particular vehicle.
> It's where the demand curve meets the supply curve.
Nope. There are no nice tidy curves.
> If Toyota can make a Prius for less it will shift the supply curve
> to the left thus reducing the price and increasing the quantity sold.
Its MUCH more complicated than that.
> To understand the concept imagine if Toyota could build a Prius for $100.
> Still think they'd be selling it for $21,000 to only a few thousand people?
Its MUCH more complicated than that.
cr113
> cr113 <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote
> >>> Personally I'd rather they left the performance the same and lowered
> >>> the price and raised the mpg. Instead they basically raised the
> >>> performance while keeping the price and mpg the same. I just get the
> >>> feeling they are still marketing this car as a gimmick for people
> >>> who want to make a statement about being "green". Not as a true
> >>> "economy" car.
> >> Your first mistake is believing that the price they charge for the
> >> Prius, or any vehicle for that matter, is directly related to the
> >> size of the engine. The 1.8 l engine will not cost them any more
> >> than the 1.5l engine.
> > I'm having a hard time believing that.
>
> You shouldnt.
>
> > All engine sizes cost the same to manufacture?
>
> No, but two engines which are identical otherwise except
> the total capacity wont cost any more when they are so close.
You're probably right. I was thinking about the way outboard motors
ramp up steeply in price according to size. I still bet it costs a
little more to make a 1.8L.
>
> >> Even if it did, the price is not determined by adding together the
> >> cost of parts and labor then marking it up a fixed amount, it's
> >> determined by what the market will pay for a particular vehicle.
> > It's where the demand curve meets the supply curve.
>
> Nope. There are no nice tidy curves.
>
> > If Toyota can make a Prius for less it will shift the supply curve
> > to the left thus reducing the price and increasing the quantity sold.
>
> Its MUCH more complicated than that.
>
> > To understand the concept imagine if Toyota could build a Prius for $100.
> > Still think they'd be selling it for $21,000 to only a few thousand people?
>
> Its MUCH more complicated than that.
Can you elaborate?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> cr113 <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote
>>>>> Personally I'd rather they left the performance the same and
>>>>> lowered the price and raised the mpg. Instead they basically
>>>>> raised the performance while keeping the price and mpg the same.
>>>>> I just get the feeling they are still marketing this car as a
>>>>> gimmick for people who want to make a statement about being
>>>>> "green". Not as a true "economy" car.
>>>> Your first mistake is believing that the price they charge for the
>>>> Prius, or any vehicle for that matter, is directly related to the
>>>> size of the engine. The 1.8 l engine will not cost them any more
>>>> than the 1.5l engine.
>>> I'm having a hard time believing that.
>> You shouldnt.
>>> All engine sizes cost the same to manufacture?
>> No, but two engines which are identical otherwise except
>> the total capacity wont cost any more when they are so close.
> You're probably right. I was thinking about the way outboard
> motors ramp up steeply in price according to size.
Most of that increase is artificial too.
> I still bet it costs a little more to make a 1.8L.
Not if its just an increase in stroke most obviously.
Not necessarily even if its an increase in bore either,
there isnt necessarily even any more steel involved.
>>>> Even if it did, the price is not determined by adding together the
>>>> cost of parts and labor then marking it up a fixed amount, it's
>>>> determined by what the market will pay for a particular vehicle.
>>> It's where the demand curve meets the supply curve.
>> Nope. There are no nice tidy curves.
>>> If Toyota can make a Prius for less it will shift the supply curve
>>> to the left thus reducing the price and increasing the quantity sold.
>> Its MUCH more complicated than that.
>>> To understand the concept imagine if Toyota could build a Prius for $100.
>>> Still think they'd be selling it for $21,000 to only a few thousand people?
>> Its MUCH more complicated than that.
> Can you elaborate?
What would happen if they could build it for $100 has nothing to do with
what happens when they can make a small difference to the $21K price.
The second case is swamped by reputation and brand loyalty and other
basic stuff like the body etc, not by price, particularly when the bodys
are significantly different like with the Prius and the Camry.
max
<e0e9715d-9287-41e2...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
cr113 <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Your first mistake is believing that the price they charge for the
> > Prius, or any vehicle for that matter, is directly related to the size
> > of the engine. The 1.8 l engine will not cost them any more than the
> > 1.5l engine.
>
> I'm having a hard time believing that. All engine sizes cost the same
> to manufacture?
Of course not, only an ass would ask such a stupid question.
this is rocket science, and very difficult to understand. impossible,
even.
.max
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
max
> It's where the demand curve meets the supply curve. If Toyota can make
> a Prius for less it will shift the supply curve to the left thus
> reducing the price and increasing the quantity sold.
>
> To understand the concept imagine if Toyota could build a Prius for
> $100. Still think they'd be selling it for $21,000 to only a few
> thousand people?
my god, you are an idiot.
max
> It's where the demand curve meets the supply curve. If Toyota can make
> a Prius for less it will shift the supply curve to the left thus
> reducing the price and increasing the quantity sold.
maybe they don't want to make more. Maybe they're faced with a
situation where demand outstrips their ability to produce. There are
distinct bottlenecks in automaker's ability to manufacture hybrid
vehicles right now. It's not as simple as "build another prius
factory".
Lou
There have been a few times in the last 40 years or so when a particular
model has sold for more than MSRP. If such circumstances as you posit were
the situation, and Toyota sold those cars to dealers for a couple of hundred
bucks, my bet is that people would bid up the price until it ended up
somewhere around where it is now. The only difference would be who gets to
pocket the money - Toyota or the dealer.
What would change things is if the supply became so plentiful that anyone
who wanted one could have one without being in competition with everyone
else. After all, look what's happened to sales of large gas guzzlers
recently.
Lou
"Brian Elfert" <bel...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:_6WdnRWKG8-t8c_V...@posted.visi...
I see. So not only have I spent a couple grand for a new battery pack, when
the filling station takes it out of my car I have to pay to replace battery
packs because other people haven't paid for one recently. I'm still out a
pile of money.
I see what you're driving at, but I don't think it'd work.
Jordan Hazen
timeOday <timeOda...@theknack.net> wrote:
>
>Probably, but the nice thing about a hybrid though is you can run the
>engine just at the RPM where it's most efficient until the battery is
>charged, then turn off the engine and drive on battery alone. So if a
>larger engine simply charges the battery that much quicker before
>turning off, it might hardly be less efficient at all.
A "series" hybrid works that way, but current cars on the market are
all "parallel" designs, where both gasonline engine and electric motor
are mechanically coupled to the wheels, using a rather clever sort of
transmission.
Each can be more efficient in certain situations. Parallel allows for
a smaller electric motor/generator.
I'd prefer the series design for its mechanical simplicity. Chevy's
upcoming Volt will be a series, basically a full electric vehicle with
completely separate engine-generator set. Some custom-built EVs are
similar, putting the genset in a small trailer that's attached only
for long trips (at all other times, it could be left at home to serve
as a standby household generator).
--
Jordan.
Dave
>
> If you have the nukes, there is no point in the massive environmental
> pollution that wind farms involve.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Makes a lot more sense to swap the packaged battery.
Not really. Unless you want to create millions of jobs for licensed fork
truck operators. If that's the goal, fine. But otherwise, it makes more
sense to leave the battery package in the car. -Dave
Rod Speed
>>> A combination of nuclear power plants and wind farms, I believe.
>> If you have the nukes, there is no point in the massive environmental pollution that wind farms involve.
> ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What are you doing down there on the floor, child ?
>>>> Standardized batteries, easily swapped at service/charging stations hooked to the electric grid.
>>> I see a problem with that. I believe if we go that route, then it's
>>> more likely that the chemical (which stores the electric charge)
>>> will be changed quickly, not the whole battery. This would be
>>> a dangerous operation, but probably LESS dangerous than
>>> refueling an IC engine vehicle is today.
>> Makes a lot more sense to swap the packaged battery.
> Not really.
Yes, really.
> Unless you want to create millions of jobs for licensed fork truck operators.
You dont need a fork truck to do that and even if you
did, you dont need to have the car driver doing it anyway.
And the charge aint in liquid chemicals anyway.
> If that's the goal, fine. But otherwise, it makes more sense to leave the battery package in the car.
Nope.
Ron Peterson
wrote:
> A "series" hybrid works that way, but current cars on the market are
> all "parallel" designs, where both gasonline engine and electric motor
> are mechanically coupled to the wheels, using a rather clever sort of
> transmission.
How are the rear wheels powered on the 2008 Highlander Hybrid? I
thought that they were only powered by a shared electric motor.
--
Ron
cr113
> From what I've read the new Prius is going to be bigger and faster and
> get slightly better fuel mileage. I don't understand this. Why do they
> need a 1.8 L engine? That's bigger than most gas only economy cars. I
> would think they could use a 1 L engine or even smaller. Do you really
> need to go 115 mph in a Prius? If they used a smaller engine and kept
> the car the same size they could sell it for less and get much better
> mileage. Am I missing something?
>
I found one thing I am missing. The Prius has an Atkinson cycle engine
while the non-hybrids have Otto cycle engines. The Atkinson cycle
engine is more efficient but less powerful than an equal sized Otto
cycle engine.