Re: Hybrid cars
 

That study may have been tainted to show that fossil fuel is more
appropriate than natural fuels.
I'm not speaking of supplying a city's power.
That can be done the old fashioned way with water and turbines.
Alochol fuel is replenishable and therfor there would be abundance of
fuel for vehicles for as long as there is farm land to produce the raw
products.
If fossil fuel is such a big deal, why don't we have cars that get
100mpg?
The technology for doing so is here and has been here since the 60's.
The auto manufacturers do not want YOU to have such a vehicle because
that would mean selling less fuel.

There is also current technology on the road, in experimental form,
that is showing how viable fuel cells are.
One company is testing a hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell.
To replenish your supply of hydrogen, you simply pull up to the pump
and insert the nozzle same as you do now with gas.
The hydrogen is created from water, which is housed in a container at
the pumping site.
As a benefit to the atmosphere, your by-product is water.

There are alternatives to fossil fuel.

Way back in the mid 60's we were told we would be out of fossil fuel by
1990.
In the 70's we were told there would be no more in 2000.

It all boils down to whom you want to believe in.
And when all else fails, create your own fuels.

Re: Hybrid cars
 

<richard1969@usa.com> wrote in message
news:1137363881.851966.63860@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...

> If fossil fuel is such a big deal, why don't we have cars that get
> 100mpg?

Because we have dumb turds buying 300+ hp SUV's that cannot get
more than 15-17-

> The technology for doing so is here and has been here since the 60's.
> The auto manufacturers do not want YOU to have such a vehicle because
> that would mean selling less fuel.

Not really. It is because horsepower is directly related to energy content
of the fuel, and you cannot have high powered guzzlers and still get 100
mpg.


> To replenish your supply of hydrogen, you simply pull up to the pump
> and insert the nozzle same as you do now with gas.
> The hydrogen is created from water, which is housed in a container at
> the pumping site.
> As a benefit to the atmosphere, your by-product is water.

And where, pray tell, do you think you are going to get hydrogen...


> There are alternatives to fossil fuel.
>
> Way back in the mid 60's we were told we would be out of fossil fuel by
> 1990.
> In the 70's we were told there would be no more in 2000.

We aren't going to run out completely, at least not yet. But are you
ready to pay $15-20 per gallon that it WILL cost, if it is even available,
when the supply actually is lower than the global demand.

There is NO light on the horizon. It is a matter of when, not if.

Re: Hybrid cars
 

HLS@nospam.nix wrote:
> <richard1969@usa.com> wrote in message
> news:1137363881.851966.63860@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
>
>> If fossil fuel is such a big deal, why don't we have cars that get
>> 100mpg?
>
> Because we have dumb turds buying 300+ hp SUV's that cannot get
> more than 15-17-

It's not so much the horsepower, but the weight, gearing, and aerodynamics
(or lack therof) that are inherent in truck-based SUV designs. The LS2
engine (400 HP) from GM gets over 25 MPG in a car. A buddy of mine has a
Dodge Durango with a 318 V8, I think it puts out about 220 HP, and gets
around 15 MPG.

>> The technology for doing so is here and has been here since the 60's.
>> The auto manufacturers do not want YOU to have such a vehicle because
>> that would mean selling less fuel.
>
> Not really. It is because horsepower is directly related to energy
> content of the fuel, and you cannot have high powered guzzlers and still
> get 100 mpg.

Like I pointed out, horsepower is not the main culprit. I drive a Cavalier
with a 2.2 liter 4 cylinder engine pumping out a whopping 115 horsepower. I
get around 30 MPG on the highway. I know a guy with a mid-90s Chevy Caprice
with a 5.0 liter V8 and he gets almost as good as I get.

Another culprit is the automatic transmission. I would probably get around
35-40 MPG if my car had a manual.

--

http://www.ronniedobbs.com/

Re: Hybrid cars
 

In article <bdAyf.9520$dW3.7009@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> ,
<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:

> > If fossil fuel is such a big deal, why don't we have cars that get
> > 100mpg?
>
> Because we have dumb turds buying 300+ hp SUV's that cannot get
> more than 15-17-

....to drive themselves to work and back, 40 miles away.

Or to drive the kids to soccer practice.

Re: Hybrid cars
 

"Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UbudndcyZZYFRVfeRVn-pw@centurytel.net...

> It's not so much the horsepower, but the weight, gearing, and aerodynamics
> (or lack therof) that are inherent in truck-based SUV designs. The LS2
> engine (400 HP) from GM gets over 25 MPG in a car. A buddy of mine has a
> Dodge Durango with a 318 V8, I think it puts out about 220 HP, and gets
> around 15 MPG.

I have a FI 318 that gets me 17-18 mpg. But horsepower IS an issue. You
cannot get horsepower without burning fuel. You can optimize mileage by
not developing full advertised horsepower at the operating speed. I've done
the math. There is no free lunch.

Weight, gearing and aerodynamics are clearly issues as well.


>
> Like I pointed out, horsepower is not the main culprit. I drive a
Cavalier
> with a 2.2 liter 4 cylinder engine pumping out a whopping 115 horsepower.
I
> get around 30 MPG on the highway. I know a guy with a mid-90s Chevy
Caprice
> with a 5.0 liter V8 and he gets almost as good as I get.

> Another culprit is the automatic transmission. I would probably get
around
> 35-40 MPG if my car had a manual.


Yes, you pointed it out, but are not quite correct. To get excellent
mileage you
have to drop actual horsepower, decrease weight, improve aerodynamics, etc.
The automatic transmission, which USED to be recognized as a mileage culprit
is not that any longer. An automatic, properly set up and functioning, can
deliver better mileage than you can get with a similarly geared standard.

Re: Hybrid cars
 

On 15 Jan 2006 07:27:18 -0800, aniramca@yahoo.com wrote:

>With the rising gas prices, we hear more and more about this type of
>car today.

Soaring? I've not seen it above $3/gal. I'd hardlycall that soaring.

Re: Hybrid cars HOV Lanes
 

On 15 Jan 2006 12:36:07 -0800, "Dick Boyd" <dickboyd@aol.com> wrote:

>
>aniramca@yahoo.com wrote:
>> With the rising gas prices, we hear more and more about this type of
>> car today. However, I am still not very sure about the reception of
>> this type of car. My friend owned a Honda Insight, and he has been
>> driving it for over 5 years now. He never complained and he said that
>> everything run perfectly so far. However, when I asked whether it is
>> worth the money, he thinks that from the economical stands point, his
>> car ended up more costly for him. He said that his car insurance itself
>> did not offset what he gained from the fuel economy. He doesn't know
>> what other extra costs for extra maintenance, as his car now reached
>> the 100K zone.
>> Today, I only see almost none of the Honda Insight (except his). I saw
>> just a number of Toyota Prius.I have never since a Ford Escape Hybrid,
>> although they bragged about it since last fall. Does Escape Hybrid
>> actually reach the consumer market? Strangely, I did see a Lexus RX
>> 400h in our rather small city the other day. I read in the news that
>> Honda Civic and Accord have now a hybrid version. The new Toyota Camry
>> hybrid is coming up. GM and Ford promise for hybrid cars (never see on
>> the street yet).
>> The bottom line, do people really care to get a higher price hybrid
>> cars? Does their reception only reflect the "environmentally
>> conscience" approach nowadays, or do people really want to buy a
>> hybrid?
>> Diesel car has never been popular in this part of the world. I wonder
>> if hybrid car is just another one of those items, where people buy to
>> make an environmental statement, or a "fad" of the 20th century.
>> How do hybrid cars really compare with regular cars in terms of: gas
>> consumptions, car insurance cost, maintenance costs, easy access for
>> repair in car garages, solving the world's environmental problems.
>> So far, I still see that hybrid cars receptions are still rather muted
>> or muzzled. I notice that people buy them just to show off, or just to
>> make statement that they are not gas guzzlers. Is this true? Would
>> like to hear some opinion and discussion.
>
>Another reason people buy the hybrids is so they can drive solo in the
>HOV lanes. The same people that fight paying a toll a trip at a time,
>will pay a premium in one lump so they can use the HOV lanes. They must
>not like EZ-Pass or carrying pocket change? [:-0]
>
>Look at the concentration of hybrids and look for a nearby HOV lane.

Look at how many highly promoted hybrids there are, and their real
world (not EPa) economy figures. Then look at small european diesels
and their real world MPg figures. see what the difference is.

Re: Hybrid cars
 

HLS@nospam.nix wrote:
>> Another culprit is the automatic transmission. I would probably get
>> around 35-40 MPG if my car had a manual.
>
>
> Yes, you pointed it out, but are not quite correct. To get excellent
> mileage you
> have to drop actual horsepower, decrease weight, improve aerodynamics,
> etc. The automatic transmission, which USED to be recognized as a
> mileage culprit is not that any longer. An automatic, properly set up
> and functioning, can deliver better mileage than you can get with a
> similarly geared standard.

How so? An automatic uses a viscous coupling, and there is always going to
be slippage. Some slushboxes have lock-up torque converters, which help
mileage in top gear, but the tranny still slips during acceleration.

--

http://www.ronniedobbs.com/

Re: Hybrid cars
 

"Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Regarding horsepower, the mathematics follows:

1 horsepower is equivalent to 0.7457 kilojoules per second
gasoline typically delivers 50 kilojoules per gram

Now, if a car is REALLY delivering 300 hp, that would mean without
loss corrections, that you would be burning about 224 kilojoules per
second of fuel, or about 4.5 grams of gasoline every second.

In an hour, you would be burning over 16000 grams of fuel to maintain
that horsepower, or about 35 pounds of fuel. That is approaching 5
gallons per hour. If you are doing 70 mph over that hour, then you cannot
get more than 14 mpg theoretical maximum.

We both know that high advertised horsepower cars might get that good
or even a little better, so what that tells us is that the engine
maintenance
systems, transmission, etc, limits the horsepower during this period. We
are
actually NOT generating 300 hp, at least not all the time.

So the bottom line is that horsepower -actual horsepower - costs.
It is inevitable. To decrease the fuel consumption, actual horsepower
generated
has to be decreased...And that can be done with weight control, rolling
friction
(tires), aerodynamics, tranny and its electronic controls, engine controls,
air condition
usage, electricity usage, etc.

Now, assuming your 100 mpg situation, and again assuming you run 70 mph
over the test period, you could not be allowed to average more that 0.7
gallons
consumption over that hour. That is very roughly 4.9 pounds of fuel, or
2225
grams. This equates to about 40 well managed horsepower...

See the discrepancy?

Re: Hybrid cars
 

HLS@nospam.nix wrote:
> "Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Regarding horsepower, the mathematics follows:
>
> 1 horsepower is equivalent to 0.7457 kilojoules per second
> gasoline typically delivers 50 kilojoules per gram
>
> Now, if a car is REALLY delivering 300 hp, that would mean without
> loss corrections, that you would be burning about 224 kilojoules per
> second of fuel, or about 4.5 grams of gasoline every second.

But all engines aren't equally efficient.

--

http://www.ronniedobbs.com/

Re: Hybrid cars
 

"Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:N4mdnQSim9loc1feRVn-jA@centurytel.net...
> HLS@nospam.nix wrote:
> >> Another culprit is the automatic transmission. I would probably
get
> >> around 35-40 MPG if my car had a manual.
> >
> >
> > Yes, you pointed it out, but are not quite correct. To get
excellent
> > mileage you
> > have to drop actual horsepower, decrease weight, improve
aerodynamics,
> > etc. The automatic transmission, which USED to be recognized as a
> > mileage culprit is not that any longer. An automatic, properly set
up
> > and functioning, can deliver better mileage than you can get with a
> > similarly geared standard.
>
> How so? An automatic uses a viscous coupling, and there is always
going to
> be slippage. Some slushboxes have lock-up torque converters, which
help
> mileage in top gear, but the tranny still slips during acceleration.
>
> --
>
> http://www.ronniedobbs.com/
>
>
Maybe you had better take a look at current autos. ALL of them have
lockup converters and 99% have overdrive as well. They are MUCH better
than a stick for mileage now.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Re: Hybrid cars
 

"Steve W." wrote:
>
> "Ronnie Dobbs" wrote:
>>
>> How so? An automatic uses a viscous coupling, and there is always
>> going to be slippage. Some slushboxes have lock-up torque
>> converters, which help mileage in top gear, but the tranny still
>> slips during acceleration.
>>
> Maybe you had better take a look at current autos. ALL of them have
> lockup converters and 99% have overdrive as well. They are MUCH better
> than a stick for mileage now.

You might like to look at the EPA test results. Cars with manual
transmissions get something like 1 mpg better mileage than the same car
with an automatic:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

Re: Hybrid cars
 

richard1969@usa.com wrote:

> That study may have been tainted to show that fossil fuel is more
> appropriate than natural fuels.
> I'm not speaking of supplying a city's power.
> That can be done the old fashioned way with water and turbines.

There is a limit to the amount of hydroelectric power available. You
can't dam up every river in the country.

> Alochol fuel is replenishable and therfor there would be abundance of
> fuel for vehicles for as long as there is farm land to produce the raw
> products.

There is great debate about the value of alcohol fuels. Studies by a
professor at Cornell University suggest that it takes more energy to
grow the corn (fertilizer, plowing, harvesting, etc.) and distill the
alcohol than you get out of the alcohol itself. Therefore, you really
don't gain anything that would displace fossil fuels.

> If fossil fuel is such a big deal, why don't we have cars that get
> 100mpg?
> The technology for doing so is here and has been here since the 60's.
> The auto manufacturers do not want YOU to have such a vehicle because
> that would mean selling less fuel.

And just what to the manufacturers care about the amount of fuel burned.
They don't own Saudi Arabia or Venezuela.

Re: Hybrid cars
 

"Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote:
> James Robinson wrote:
>>
>> richard1969@usa.com wrote:
>>
>>> It's high time to kiss fossil fuel burners goodbye all together.
>>> Not to be dumping the vehicles in favor of so called hybrids, but
>>> rather convert them to burn alcohol.
>>> The farmer could grow enough grain and veggies to not only make
>>> cheap fuel, but have more than enough to supply every vehicle with
>>> ample fuel for years.
>>
>> That's debatable. USDA funded studies suggest that if all
>> agricultural land that can be dedicated to production of plants for
>> ethanol, we would only be able to get about 2 percent of the
>> country's total energy. There would still be a need for fossil
>> fuels.
>
> But can we trust USDA studies? With the anti-science bent of the
> current administration, and Big Oil's hands in the administration's
> pockets, there is a real chance the studies are totally bunk.

They can't make 100 percent into 2 percent by some slight adjustments in
facts. The reality is that alcohol is not much of an answer to the
problem with a shortage of fossil fuels.

Re: Hybrid cars
 

Steve W. wrote:
> "Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:N4mdnQSim9loc1feRVn-jA@centurytel.net...
>> HLS@nospam.nix wrote:
>> >> Another culprit is the automatic transmission. I would probably
> get
>> >> around 35-40 MPG if my car had a manual.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, you pointed it out, but are not quite correct. To get
> excellent
>> > mileage you
>> > have to drop actual horsepower, decrease weight, improve
> aerodynamics,
>> > etc. The automatic transmission, which USED to be recognized as a
>> > mileage culprit is not that any longer. An automatic, properly set
> up
>> > and functioning, can deliver better mileage than you can get with a
>> > similarly geared standard.
>>
>> How so? An automatic uses a viscous coupling, and there is always
> going to
>> be slippage. Some slushboxes have lock-up torque converters, which
> help
>> mileage in top gear, but the tranny still slips during acceleration.
>>
>> --
>>
>> http://www.ronniedobbs.com/
>>
>>
> Maybe you had better take a look at current autos. ALL of them have
> lockup converters and 99% have overdrive as well. They are MUCH better
> than a stick for mileage now.

The lockup torque converter does nothing for mileage except in high gear.
And the vast majority (if not all) manual transmissions have at least one
overdrive gear. I've never, ever heard of a slushbox that got better
mileage than an equivalent manual gearbox.

--

http://www.ronniedobbs.com/