Dual Fuel "hybrid" vehicles.....

[TheRogue]

We have 2 at work, a Toyota Prius and a Honda Civic....sorry, but I work for the feds, so go ahead and bash away on the feds buying "foreign".

Anyway, took the Civic to Auburn WA on Thursday. I was actually pretty impressed. It was definitely a heavy rig, don't know what the extra battery weight was, but it was considerable. It cruised pretty nicely, and when you tromped on it, it got up and went about as well as my 4cyl Accord with the AC on and 4 people in it.

I'd never want it for hauling the family around, too gutless, but as a commuter rig, it would probably be just fine. Still can feel the surging going back and forth between the gas assist and straight electric, but was pretty minimal.

TR

[1pump]

I've seen quite a few of the Hondas around, and occasionally I'll spot a Saturn all-electric. I've been curious about the way they perform. Maybe one of these days I'll get to drive one. Better yet, maybe I'll get to tear one apart and see how it works. :shocked:

[BrionLutz]

TheRogue,

Neighbors have the Hybrid Civic and love it. They leave the BMW home and take the Civic to the shore house.

I'm on the waiting list for the Ford Escape hybrid. Should be next fall.

Ford is figuring 48 miles per gallon city and then 28 mpg highway...blasting along at 65mph.

Brion

[Mr. Carp]

Sad thing is my Jetta diesel beats that on economy and it didn't cost nearly as much as one of those cars.

[BrionLutz]

Mr. Carp,

Sad thing is my Jetta diesel beats that on economy and it didn't cost nearly as much as one of those cars.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Problem with Diesels are the emissions. The Hybrids get the mileage up by about 50% and cut the pollution by close to 90%.

Right cars at the right time.

Would certainly get us out of Iraq.

Brion

[Mr. Carp]

I would still weigh it out completely and not look roughly at the numbers.

A diesel getting 53mpg on the freeway and a hybrid putting out less emmissions and only getting 28mpg. I would have to really see some improvments in hybrid technology before I'd part with the diesel.

[BrionLutz]

Mr. Carp,

I like the Diesels, had a Rabbit Diesel way back when.

If VW came out with the 4Motion turbo-Diesel I would be sorely tempted to make that my winter car.

I'll be happy with the Escape Hybrid. When needed, it's the full V-6. At 48mpg and super low emissions...I won't be riding with Ossama.

Brion

[2LEYS]

Not everything is as it seems.

These battery powered vehicles actually increase polution in some ways.

And batteries are not as envionmentally freindly as everyone thinks.

I can't find any articles, but I have heard that the maufacturing process for batteries is very bad for the enviornment. This has probably gotten better with the newer batteries but it still exists.

Hippies hear the media say "0 emissions" and they all get happy, hold hands and sing cumbaya and think they are saving the world.

Looks like all the hippies need to put their cars in their garages and go back to walking. Wait but shoes have rubber, and rubber is bad..

And leather is made of animals and it is bad. And walking causes erosion, and that is bad.

It is just a never ending struggle for the hippies to rid the world of the evil human.

We can all do a little but there has to be a limit. All this enviornmental crap is mostly naturally occuring and nature itself does more than humans.

[ 07-22-2003, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: 2LEYS ]

[BonkBonkBonk]

Originally posted by Mr. Carp:
Sad thing is my Jetta diesel beats that on economy and it didn't cost nearly as much as one of those cars.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">my diesel chevette gets 40mpg city with my lead foot,and treving it to 5k. its great!.
i dont see why more people go to diesels. with todays 6speeds, and modern tecnology you oculd get great MPG, AND you can run them off soy based fuels.

[Cool Texan]

I see those cars on the road from time to time, and hope they take off...or the hydrogen fuel cells. Once they get more adoption of them, perhaps the $ will be available to sink into more R&D to figure out how to improve upon them and make the performance more desireable.

[WaterDog]

You don’t see a lot of diesels other than in trucks because they have an image problem. Most think they are noisy, stinky, lack power, and to some degree not very reliable thanks to GM’s early attempt at diesels. Many associate clouds of black smoke with a diesel. The modern diesel is quiet, efficient, and powerful. I wish the explorer or expedition would come with a diesel.

[Gus Orviston]

2LEYS, well said...

I always crack up when people look at the end product, but discount the manufacturing process, and waste generated in the making.
I recall hearing that the off gas and battery waste/diposal is as bad pollution overall hydrogen gas, recycling etc..

That said it is also a battle of perspective and who controls the images we have.

Fuel cell technology will definitely be getting better and these cars will take over the commuter lanes for sure. Especially in bigger cities, just got to tax the diesel drivers a bit more :tongue: BBB.

gus

[BrionLutz]

2LEYS:

These battery powered vehicles actually in some ways.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Not really. Overall net effect is much less pollution for current 3rd generation hybrid's

The example you provided was looking at the generation of electricity as polluting and then put that burden on the electric cars. The real issue would using less polluting means of generating electricity.

Regarding the battery mfg. and disposal, again, that has to be done with an eye to less pollution and recycling...but that applies right now to all car batteries.

Same for car mfg. itself.

The key to hybrids right now are:

1. Mfg. creates no more pollution.

2. Use creates much less pollution.

3. Uses much less energy especially oil which has high military, economic, political and environmental costs.

Hybrids are the bridge to hydrogen powered vehicles.

Looks like all the hippies need to put their cars in their garages and go back to walking.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think you mean ex-hippie wealthy yupsters who can outbid you for scarce resources and can put you on the street while cruising past in their hybrids &lt;grin&gt;.

Look at it this way, if US switches to hybrid vehicles, no more wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. No more spending trillion$ on military to secure oil supplies in the Middle East, 50% less air and water pollution, 20% cut in US trade deficit, 5% increase in US jobs and industry.

All good, no bad.

Brion

[FallRiverGuy]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:

Hybrids are the bridge to hydrogen powered vehicles.

Brion [/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think this is key. We need to change the way we think when it comes to transportation power. Someone has to pay for the development of new generation cars. Consumers have to show a demand for alternative cars. For example, I buy some of my electricity from wind power. It is not cost effective(I can buy it cheaper else where) at this point, but I support the industry in hopes of better things to come.

[BonkBonkBonk]

Originally posted by WaterDog:
You don’t see a lot of diesels other than in trucks because they have an image problem. Most think they are noisy, stinky, lack power, and to some degree not very reliable thanks to GM’s early attempt at diesels. Many associate clouds of black smoke with a diesel. The modern diesel is quiet, efficient, and powerful.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">i agree
the only time my exaust is black is in the winter

[DanS]

All this enviornmental crap is mostly naturally occuring

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">What's that mean?

[WaterDog]

I'm on my second PSD and niether ever smoked. My 2000 is chipped and it doesnt blow smoke no matter how hard I try to make it. :grin:

I know Ford, Toyota, and Nissan have other vehicles that are sold in Europe and South America that are diesel powered. The US is just not very accepting to this kind of power. I know it's not as efficient as a hybrid but an explorer that would get 25 to 30 mpg would be cool.

Then there is bio-diesel. Although I dont think I could burn that fuel. I'd be hungry all the time cuz my exhaust would smell like french fies. :blush:

[Rod Holder]

We have a new Jetta diesel wagon. Clean, quiet, blast down the freeway as fast as you dare and gets 40-50 mpg.... I heard a Toyota rep on the radio talking about hybreds, I don't remember the numbers but it struck me that the life expetancy of the battery pack was short and the replacement cost was thousands of dollars. If you really wanted to be enviromentally friendly, one would get an electric car....oh ...wait... you have to plug it into a smoke belching, coal fired power plant to recharge it...oh well...getta Jetta....just wished it would tow the boat

[Cool Texan]

My Durango gets 40-50mpg.... (down hill, with a tail wind, with the engine turned off)

:grin:

[BrionLutz]

WaterDog,

I know it's not as efficient as a hybrid but an explorer that would get 25 to 30 mpg would be cool.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually, Union of Concerned Scientists designed a Hybrid Explorer that gets 35 mpg. Just the Explorer version of the Hybrid Escape (48 mpg) that will be out next year. Plus the Explorer keeps the tow capacity for when it's needed.

Wouldn't that be sweet! Tool around town and to work at 35mpg and then tow to the Fishery on weekends.

Greener SUVs: A Blueprint for Cleaner, More Efficient Light Trucks

No reason we can't have that now. A good example of where Gov't Regulation mandating high mileage, non-polluting vehicles would help US mfg. to take the industry lead.

Brion

[ 07-22-2003, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[Mr. Carp]

Originally posted by WaterDog:
I'm on my second PSD and niether ever smoked. My 2000 is chipped and it doesnt blow smoke no matter how hard I try to make it. :grin:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">What chip do you have and how many hp's is it supposed to give??

We put a 75hp chip in an F-350 and an F-550 and they ran like mad. The 550 would smoke when you would bury your foot in it, but it was usually towing a big trailer and had a vehicle weight of 12,000 alone. Throw a baby excavator on a trailor and we are pushing 20,000lbs. A little smoke doesn't hurt that much when you can pass cars going up hill dragging all that weight. :grin:

The 550 responded to the chip better than the 350 did. Maybe because of the bigger turbo and exhaust on the 550??? I don't know. All I know is when you can do posi smokey burnouts in a 12,000 lb dually with ease, you have a heck of a truck... :grin:

[Mr. Carp]

Originally posted by WaterDog:
I wish the explorer or expedition would come with a diesel.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That would be so sweet. I'd love to have an explorer witha little cummins or something in it. I wish Ford would keep making the Excursion because it can come in a diesel, but they are phasing it out.

A person I know put a cummins out of a Ram into a 1970 4x4 Suburban. What a machine! I wish Chev would put the Duramax in the Suburban and Tahoe. Then we would have some mean machines as well. :grin: Personally would rather have the Ford though.

As far as smoking and power, my old Jetta was a slow pile of poo and it smoked pretty good but it saved me a heck of a lot of green when I was commuting to school. The new diesels are so much better though. Put a chip in a Power Stroke and you can fry 35" tires all day long and pull a house besides.... :grin:

[ 07-22-2003, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Carp ]

[WaterDog]

Interesting link Brion. A little on the green/eco/tofu/hippie side but interesting none the less. And your right, I would love to have an explorer that gets that kind of mileage. I still think you could get as good as mileage with a diesel and get a better "fun factor".

Carp, actually I have a Superchips Micro Tuner 1705 (programmer). It gives me a choice of 60 or 80hp. I run the 60hp program and for what I do it's just right. Great power and good mileage. It also works well with the stock exhaust and doesn't compromise the engine and tranny much. You need to be careful with some of the chips that are out there. I'd never chip a diesel w/o installing a gage pod first.

[BrionLutz]

Waterdog,

I still think you could get as good as mileage with a diesel and get a better "fun factor".

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I don't think so. I was looking at the Diesel trucks and was surprised how poor their mileage was when not towing. On the diesel cars, they tend to be at the low end of the power rating to get the good milege. Nothing wrong with that, I think they are great but it's part of how they get the mileage.

The cool thing on the hybrids was the ability to be extremely fuel efficient in one mode, and haul the boat in the other.

I think that's more real world.

Plus the hybrids get their great fuel mileage in the most common application, getting to work, going to the store, the kids stuff, etc. and do it with much lower emissions than Diesels.

You can see the smog haze over Portland on these hot days...almost 100% for car and truck exhaust.

The real hot button for me is that this technology can be deployed right now. No reason we can't be tooling around in hybrids...but it needs some push from the government and on this issue, Bush Jr is riding with Bin Laden vs. Buck Rogers.

Brion

[WaterDog]

So what do you consider good mileage in a truck? Are you thinking we should be getting 30mpg? :whazzup:

The "fun factor" is different for everybody. If the new generation of diesels are similar to the current navistar and duramax, there is plenty of fun to be had. These are clean burning engines.
They are no where close to the stink pots most think they are.

[2LEYS]

Why does everything with you end up being Bush's fault? According to you he is the anti-christ and responsible for everything bad in the world.

Was it Bush and not Eve who tempted adam with the apple?

[Mr. Carp]

Originally posted by WaterDog:
So what do you consider good mileage in a truck? Are you thinking we should be getting 30mpg? :whazzup:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">My thoughts exactly. These are 6000 lb plus vehicles. Not 250 lb Geo Metros. My dad gets approximately 20mpg on the highway in his PSD. The cummins get a little better yet. It's all relative. Go buy the 8.1L Chevrolet and see how good of mileage you get with that pig. Besides, it is a Chev and you don't want to be involved with trouble like that

[Killertraylor]

2leys - great hippie post above! With regard to trucks, I had an 02 F-250 diesel and could never get used to the lack of accelleration compared to a gas engine, although I loved the way it towed the boat. Gas mileage wasn't that much better than my 03 Supercrew with the 5.4 and my Toyota Sequoia with the 4.7 V8 gets much better mileage than the 7.3 diesel did. I hear that the new 6.0 Ford diesel and the new Dodge diesel are much quicker though.

[BonkBonkBonk]

your complaining about getting 20+mpg out of a 7.3 engine? :shocked:

[BrionLutz]

So what do you consider good mileage in a truck? Are you thinking we should be getting 30mpg?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">35mpg actually...what the Hybrid Explorer gets. The Hybrid Escape will get 48 mpg. Delivery next summer.

On the Diesel trucks, they are big heavy vehicles so the low teens mileage is understandable. I would have hoped they could have come up with an 8,000 lb tow capacity diesel that got 30 mpg while not towing.

Brion

[Flatfish]

Yeah, I was thinking about one of them....The 200 V-Max is oil injected. The 10hp kicker requires premix in the tank!

Sorry but I have been reading this for too long to not say it.

Mark and the dog who run on chips, burgers, and Eukanuba.

[ 07-23-2003, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Flatfish ]

[Mr. Carp]

I want to see that Escape pull a 6000 lb boat like a 1-ton diesel though. (without wrecking)
I don't think you'll be towing more than a livingston with the Escape. :grin:

[BrionLutz]

Mr. Carp,

I want to see that Escape pull a 6000 lb boat like a 1-ton diesel though.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You'd need to look at an Explorer for a 6,000 lb tow. The Escape is a smaller vehicle that only tows 3,500#. You can get more info on the two ratings at Ford SUV's and then look under Specs.

The Escape Hybrid will only tow 1,000 lbs. The Hybrid Explorer designed by the UCS has a projected tow capacity of 3,000 lbs.

The advantage of the hybrid's is that they can go to full gas engine mode. No reason they couldn't build a diesel hybrid, in fact, Volvo has that setup for its hybrid.

Brion

[ 07-24-2003, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: BrionLutz ]

[freespool]

Brion, I think your right on the money about hydrogen powered cars. They are able to abapt any gas engine to operate on hyrogen. So no reinventing the wheel here. Think of it this way, if they can adapt a gas engine to run on propane why not hydrogen. I feel the biggest reason lies in the fact the hydrogen powered car folks didn't get Bush elected. Bush stated a couple months ago that a child born today would drive a hydrogen powered car. That is just to long of a ramp up for this to be effective. If we spent half the money on hydrogen power as we do on the military in the Middle East we wouldn't be in this mess. Picture Arabs herding camels accross the open desert.

[ 07-25-2003, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: freespool ]

[2LEYS]

Freespool

Running a car on hydrogen is much much much more complicated than running one on propane. First you need to extract hydrogen form a source. It is not just found in large reserves in the ground. It is the lightest smallest element. And very flammable, remember the hindenburg?

And once again, the grass isn't always greener. It takes an awful lot of energy to extract hydrogen.

Once again, sorry hippies, you still havn't found a low pollution energy source....it once again only seems that way to the narrow minded hippies.

Here is an article that details the pollution involved with hydrogen production. I can't post the link because you have to register to read it. If you want to register ask and I will send you the link. Here is the article.

A Pollution-Free Hydrogen Economy? Not So Soon
Electric cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells don’t produce greenhouse-enhancing carbon dioxide. But producing hydrogen does—and if we want to reduce our petroleum dependence, we’re going to have to reconcile ourselves to that fact.

By Richard A. Muller
Technology for Presidents
July 11, 2003


Think hydrogen—the clean fuel of the future. It burns with oxygen to make water vapor, and only water vapor—no soot, no nitrous oxides, no carbon dioxide with its potential greenhouse warming. In his State of the Union message in January, President Bush announced a major new initiative. He proposed $1.2 billion in research funding that he said would enable the United States to “lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.” Spurred by this new federal support, Bush said, “our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.” His surprise announcement met with enthusiastic applause.


Now here is a more pessimistic view of the hydrogen economy: huge open pit mines scarring much of Pennsylvania, Illinois, Utah, and Colorado. Billions of tons of carbon dioxide are dumped into the atmosphere every year from facilities that produce hydrogen—by burning the fossil fuels coal, oil, and natural gas.

Where is the truth? Undoubtedly somewhere in between—but it probably involves heavy burning of fossil fuels.

The key fact is this: Hydrogen is not a source of energy. It is only a way of storing and transporting it. Although hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe (and in the more immediate neighborhood, it makes up 90 percent of the atoms in the Sun and Jupiter), there is virtually no hydrogen gas on Earth. Our gravity is so weak that essentially all our primordial hydrogen—except that which bound itself into heavier compounds—escaped into space billions of years ago. So hydrogen fuel must be “manufactured” by extracting it from water and methane. You get out from hydrogen fuel only the energy you put into extraction, or from burning carbon in the process.

Water can be split into hydrogen and oxygen by electric current, the process known as electrolysis. Plain heat will do the trick too. Above 2,700 C water spontaneously decomposes. On a sufficiently hot fire (e.g., the oil well fires of Kuwait), water decomposes and then recombines when it cools above the well.

But splitting water is expensive, and we don’t need the oxygen. There’s a much cheaper way to produce hydrogen: spray steam on white-hot coals and out comes mostly hydrogen gas (40 percent) and carbon monoxide (50 percent), a mixture known appropriately as “water gas.” It’s the least expensive way to make hydrogen. Unfortunately, the carbon monoxide produced along with it is highly poisonous. To extract the last bit of energy, the carbon monoxide can be burned, and that turns it into the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

The production of water gas began in earnest in the 1870s. The other common “manufactured” gas back then was coal gas, extracted from bituminous coal by heating it in an oxygen-free environment. Coal gas went to streetlamps and homes, and the more dangerous water gas was used by industry. Water gas is still extensively in steel manufacture and in the so-called Fisher-Tropsch process, which is used to make synthetic gasoline and alcohols.

In the 1920s, the discovery of large underground reserves of methane provided a cheaper alternative to coal gas. Since it wasn’t manufactured, it was called “natural gas,” the name still used today. Methane also replaced coal for water gas production. As with coal, producing hydrogen from methane yields abundant carbon monoxide that upon combustion becomes carbon dioxide.


But the news isn’t all bad. For the same energy delivered, producing hydrogen from methane dumps about half as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as burning fossil fuels does. That’s largely because hydrogen-based fuel cells are more efficient than internal combustion engines. In addition, serious research programs are underway to find a way to sequester carbon dioxide, whether it comes from hydrogen production or any other process that burns fossil fuels. One cheap solution could be to bury it in depleted gas and oil wells. My pessimistic bet, though, is that sequestering will be expensive. Politicians will choose to dump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and pay the hidden price of pollution, rather than ask the public to pay an up-front price at the pump.

Still, hydrogen is far from an ideal automobile fuel. Even in its densest form (liquid), hydrogen has only one-third as much energy per liter as gasoline. If stored as compressed gas at 300 atmospheres (a more practical option), it delivers less than one-fifth the energy per volume as gasoline. Such low energy density means that fuel storage would take up lots of room in a hydrogen-powered car—or, alternatively, a modest-sized fuel tank would severely restrict the vehicle's range between fill-ups. Technology being developed to allow higher pressures would make hydrogen cars more attractive.

The known U.S. reserves of natural gas will be gone in a few decades, or sooner if we start using it for automobiles. The key assumption behind the push for a hydrogen economy appears to be the belief that there exist vast, undiscovered reserves of natural gas in the United States and around the world. But even if that belief proves wrong, we can always go back to making hydrogen from coal; we have enough of that for a century, if we don’t mind open pit mines.

I believe that the hydrogen economy is inevitable. Apparently so do big investors, who are setting up port facilities for future importation of large quantities of liquefied natural gas.

I also believe that the hydrogen will be made by whatever method is cheapest. In the short run, we could revert to electrolysis, powered by electricity from nuclear plants. Right now nuclear energy is expensive, largely, I believe, because of regulations driven by the perceived risk of radioactivity. Yet I think that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere offers a much greater long-term threat to the environment and to health than do nuclear power plants. We experienced the dangers of nuclear power in Chernobyl. For the carbon-based economy, the equivalent of Chernobyl is not just global warming; it is war. We saw that in Iraq. So on balance, I prefer nuclear-produced to methane-produced hydrogen.

When solar-generated electricity becomes cheaper than natural gas or coal, we can leave the fossil fuels in the ground, and have the best of all worlds. Cheap solar is inevitable, and we will not have to plaster the state of California with solar cells to enjoy its benefits. In a square kilometer of sunlight there is are 1,000 megawatts of solar power—the equivalent of a large nuclear power plant. Even if only 10 or 20 percent of the sunlight’s energy is extracted as electricity, the area of the solar cells will not be much larger than what we currently devote to nuclear, gas, or coal plants. Energy can be stored at night (and during cloudy days) in hydrogen. The solar future is coming.

Creating a hydrogen economy is good goal. But in the near term, barring a nuclear-power revival, the transition to hydrogen will probably mean a growing dependence on imported natural gas, and the continued pollution of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. Despite President Bush’s optimism, the first cars of today’s children are highly unlikely to be powered by hydrogen that was cleanly produced. But maybe the cars of their children will be. And in the long term, our switch to hydrogen could ease the transition to a solar-powered economy.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[freespool]

2lays your going to have to be a little more specific here. Please give me your definition of a hippie. You seem to like to use that lable as a catch all phrase. Is it anyone who didn't vote for Bush Jr.? I sense some hostility here.

[Mr. Carp]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
You'd need to look at an Explorer for a 6,000 lb tow. The Escape is a smaller vehicle that only tows 3,500#.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The problem with towing that much with small vehicles is that the tow vehicle doen't weigh close to that much. IMHO, a person would be crazy to pull 7000lb (As Ford.com states) with an explorer. That is why there is a wreck coming down the hill into Woodland on I-5 every other week with a tiny little truck towing a large boat or trailer and ended up on its top. I think the auto manufacturers are kinda generous with those ratings.

I have towed our 4000lb boat behind my explorer a couple of times, but it can get kinda hairy at times. :grin: You definately need to have a clue about what you are doing.

[BrionLutz]

Mr. Carp,

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
You'd need to look at an Explorer for a 6,000 lb tow.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

IMHO, a person would be crazy to pull 7000lb (As Ford.com states) with an explorer.
That is why there is a wreck coming down the hill into Woodland on I-5 every other week with a tiny little truck towing a large boat or trailer and ended up on its top.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think the Explorer weighs in at close to 5,000 lbs.

You definately need to have a clue about what you are doing.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yes..one would need a clue.

Brion