John Doe

Although I was interested in the newer hybrid models and anxious for Hyundai
to show one, I recently found info that makes me think the hybrids are over
rated.

It seems that the US government standard test analyzes the emissions from a
particular car ad engine to estimate the fuel economy. Wit Hybrids they
still use the same test thus the ratings are higher than the car actually
can and will produce. Government says expect 75 % of what the rating is, and
Consumer reprots says expect 60% and 75% if you are doing everything just
right!

So those folks with the 53 mpg honda civics can expect 38 mpg or so. Great
testing by the feds. Admit it is flawed but won't come up with a better
system until 20 million is invested in research on the problem. Heck, why
not put a full tank in the dar and drive it for 300 miles an then fill it
again to see the mileage you got?

There is a right way to do testing, and ther is a wrong way to do testing...
then there is the government way!

Paul MacGregor

I'm more anxious to see more diesel engine vehicles in North America. I
would love to see a diesel Santa Fe with the nice little hood scoop that the
European model has. Diesel cars here in NA is not a huge stretch since most
of the models sold here with gas engines are sold everywhere else in Europe
with diesel engine.
"John Doe" <azNO4lifeSPAM@***.net> wrote in message
newsbhqc.34047$5a.1213@okepread03...
> Although I was interested in the newer hybrid models and anxious for
Hyundai
> to show one, I recently found info that makes me think the hybrids are
over
> rated.
>
> It seems that the US government standard test analyzes the emissions from
a
> particular car ad engine to estimate the fuel economy. Wit Hybrids they
> still use the same test thus the ratings are higher than the car actually
> can and will produce. Government says expect 75 % of what the rating is,
and
> Consumer reprots says expect 60% and 75% if you are doing everything just
> right!
>
> So those folks with the 53 mpg honda civics can expect 38 mpg or so.
Great
> testing by the feds. Admit it is flawed but won't come up with a better
> system until 20 million is invested in research on the problem. Heck, why
> not put a full tank in the dar and drive it for 300 miles an then fill it
> again to see the mileage you got?
>
> There is a right way to do testing, and ther is a wrong way to do
testing...
> then there is the government way!
>
>

Mitchell Kaufman

On Mon, 17 May 2004 22:31:53 -0700, "John Doe" <azNO4lifeSPAM@***.net>
wrote:

>Although I was interested in the newer hybrid models and anxious for Hyundai
>to show one, I recently found info that makes me think the hybrids are over
>rated.
>
Hyundai will be selling (for fleet use) fuel cell powered Tucsons this
fall.

Brian Nystrom

Mitchell Kaufman wrote:

> On Mon, 17 May 2004 22:31:53 -0700, "John Doe" <azNO4lifeSPAM@***.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Although I was interested in the newer hybrid models and anxious for Hyundai
>>to show one, I recently found info that makes me think the hybrids are over
>>rated.
>>
>
> Hyundai will be selling (for fleet use) fuel cell powered Tucsons this
> fall.
>
That's where the future lies. Hybrids are simply a stop-gap,
intermediate step until fuel cell technology matures and the
infrastructure in put in place.

Once that happens, we'll finally be able to tell OPEC to take their oil
and stick it where the sun don't shine!

Chris

"Paul MacGregor" <canopyflier@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<9znqc.29412$325.781927@news20.bellglobal.com >...
> I'm more anxious to see more diesel engine vehicles in North America. I
> would love to see a diesel Santa Fe with the nice little hood scoop that the
> European model has.

The nice little hood scoop has been abandonned in 2003 :-( . Due to
gasoline prices in my country the Santa Fe diesel engines are
predominant (90 %). Actually there are only 2 engines avail, the 125
CV 2.0 turbo diesel or the 2.7L V6. Automatic transmission is almost
inexistent. Diesel is more claimed to be more polluting but on the
other hand the mileage is much better so I don't know what is better
regarding environment.

> Diesel cars here in NA is not a huge stretch since most
> of the models sold here with gas engines are sold everywhere else in Europe
> with diesel engine.
> "John Doe" <azNO4lifeSPAM@***.net> wrote in message
> newsbhqc.34047$5a.1213@okepread03...
> > Although I was interested in the newer hybrid models and anxious for
> Hyundai
> > to show one, I recently found info that makes me think the hybrids are
> over
> > rated.
> >
> > It seems that the US government standard test analyzes the emissions from
> a
> > particular car ad engine to estimate the fuel economy. Wit Hybrids they
> > still use the same test thus the ratings are higher than the car actually
> > can and will produce. Government says expect 75 % of what the rating is,
> and
> > Consumer reprots says expect 60% and 75% if you are doing everything just
> > right!
> >
> > So those folks with the 53 mpg honda civics can expect 38 mpg or so.
> Great
> > testing by the feds. Admit it is flawed but won't come up with a better
> > system until 20 million is invested in research on the problem. Heck, why
> > not put a full tank in the dar and drive it for 300 miles an then fill it
> > again to see the mileage you got?
> >
> > There is a right way to do testing, and ther is a wrong way to do
> testing...
> > then there is the government way!
> >
> >

Xiaoding

> That's where the future lies. Hybrids are simply a stop-gap,
> intermediate step until fuel cell technology matures and the
> infrastructure in put in place.
>
> Once that happens, we'll finally be able to tell OPEC to take their oil
> and stick it where the sun don't shine!

Really? Where will the energy needed to make the fuel cells come
from? They use hydrogen...which takes OIL to make, since hydrogen is
not a fuel source, it's an energy transfer medium. What about the
infrastructure needed to store and transport the hydrogen, which is
very very, VERY bulky? I won't even mention the heavy metals
pollution from millions of dead fuel cells. In the meantime, oil
reclamation, recycling and biomass conversion is making leaps and
bounds progress, so much so that we may not EVER really need hydrogen
at all. In any case, don't hold your breath waiting for real-world
fuel cell cars, like fusion, it's only a year or so away!! Oh, and
flying cars come out in September! Along with the personal robot
slaves to do all your work for you!

Xin

Brian Nystrom

Xiaoding wrote:

>>That's where the future lies. Hybrids are simply a stop-gap,
>>intermediate step until fuel cell technology matures and the
>>infrastructure in put in place.
>>
>>Once that happens, we'll finally be able to tell OPEC to take their oil
>>and stick it where the sun don't shine!
>
>
> Really? Where will the energy needed to make the fuel cells come
> from? They use hydrogen...which takes OIL to make, since hydrogen is
> not a fuel source, it's an energy transfer medium.

Not true. The fuel cells that are most likely to make it into production
are powered by ethanol or hydrogen peroxide, neither of which come from
oil. There are also cells that use propane and LNG, which are available
from domestic sources.

> What about the
> infrastructure needed to store and transport the hydrogen, which is
> very very, VERY bulky?

Not in liquified form, it's not. Besides, it's not necessary

> I won't even mention the heavy metals
> pollution from millions of dead fuel cells.

What heavy metals? We're talking about fuel cells, not batteries.
Hybrids are the ones with all the heavy metals in them.

> In the meantime, oil
> reclamation, recycling and biomass conversion is making leaps and
> bounds progress, so much so that we may not EVER really need hydrogen
> at all.

Really? Exactly what "leaps and bounds" are you talking about?

You cannot reclaim burned gasoline or diesel fuel, which accounts for
the overwhelming bulk of oil consumption in vehicles. At 30 mpg, a car
will burn between 100 and 250 gallons of non-reclaimable gasoline
between each one gallon reclaimable oil change, depending on the change
interval. At lower mpg, the ratio is even higher. In older cars that
consume oil due to engine wear, there is even oil to reclaim.

> In any case, don't hold your breath waiting for real-world
> fuel cell cars, like fusion, it's only a year or so away!! Oh, and
> flying cars come out in September! Along with the personal robot
> slaves to do all your work for you!

Your attempts at hyperbole don't change the fact that there are fuel
cell powered cars on the road today and development is ongoing
worldwide. If you want to talk about leaps and bounds, fuel cell
technology is a good one to look at. A system that filled the back of a
small van a few years ago now fits under the body of a compact car and
produces more power. The technology exists and the infrastructure can be
built. I'll bet that within five years fuel cell filling stations will
outnumber bio-diesel stations in the US, though admittedly that's not
saying much.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticiziong hybrids. I'm just pointing out
that they're probably a short term product. They're not being produced
in sufficient quantities to meet the demand and the prices are so high
that you can't recoup the increased cost of the car in fuel savings. I
suspect that this is because the car companies know that this is not a
long term solution.

Xiaoding

Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@att.net> wrote in message news:<hkntc.76680$hH.1418684@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> Xiaoding wrote:
>
> >>That's where the future lies. Hybrids are simply a stop-gap,
> >>intermediate step until fuel cell technology matures and the
> >>infrastructure in put in place.
> >>
> >>Once that happens, we'll finally be able to tell OPEC to take their oil
> >>and stick it where the sun don't shine!
> >
> >
> > Really? Where will the energy needed to make the fuel cells come
> > from? They use hydrogen...which takes OIL to make, since hydrogen is
> > not a fuel source, it's an energy transfer medium.
>
> Not true. The fuel cells that are most likely to make it into production
> are powered by ethanol or hydrogen peroxide, neither of which come from
> oil. There are also cells that use propane and LNG, which are available
> from domestic sources.

A quick search on google turns up article after article on hydrogen
fuel cell cars, not one mention of any other type. Why bother to make
ethanol when you can just as easily make oil from the same stuff?
Hydrogen peroxide? How much is that a gallon? Last time I looked, no
one was pumping it from the ground, which means it's not a fuel
source.
>
> > What about the
> > infrastructure needed to store and transport the hydrogen, which is
> > very very, VERY bulky?
>
> Not in liquified form, it's not. Besides, it's not necessary.

Agreed, not needed. Liqiod hydrogen? A laboratoy curiosity, not
a real world fuel.
>
> > I won't even mention the heavy metals
> > pollution from millions of dead fuel cells.
>
> What heavy metals? We're talking about fuel cells, not batteries.
> Hybrids are the ones with all the heavy metals in them.


Fuel cells use palladium and other heavy metals. Also, the supply of
these metals is in question, since we would need so much of it.

>
> > In the meantime, oil
> > reclamation, recycling and biomass conversion is making leaps and
> > bounds progress, so much so that we may not EVER really need hydrogen
> > at all.
>
> Really? Exactly what "leaps and bounds" are you talking about?
>
> You cannot reclaim burned gasoline or diesel fuel, which accounts for
> the overwhelming bulk of oil consumption in vehicles. At 30 mpg, a car
> will burn between 100 and 250 gallons of non-reclaimable gasoline
> between each one gallon reclaimable oil change, depending on the change
> interval. At lower mpg, the ratio is even higher. In older cars that
> consume oil due to engine wear, there is even oil to reclaim.

True, burned gas is gone. I am refering to the real-world conversion
of any biomass, landfill trash, turkey gizzards, old tires, plastic,
paper, etc., into oil. The process pays for itself, and plants are
being built as we speak. Estimates are 30% of current oil usage (US)
can be supplied turning trash back into oil. We can actually eat
landfills up at one end, truck away oil at the other.
>
> > In any case, don't hold your breath waiting for real-world
> > fuel cell cars, like fusion, it's only a year or so away!! Oh, and
> > flying cars come out in September! Along with the personal robot
> > slaves to do all your work for you!
>
> Your attempts at hyperbole don't change the fact that there are fuel
> cell powered cars on the road today and development is ongoing
> worldwide. If you want to talk about leaps and bounds, fuel cell
> technology is a good one to look at. A system that filled the back of a
> small van a few years ago now fits under the body of a compact car and
> produces more power. The technology exists and the infrastructure can be
> built. I'll bet that within five years fuel cell filling stations will
> outnumber bio-diesel stations in the US, though admittedly that's not
> saying much.
>

I bet against it. I'm betting on working fusion in the next 1000
years, though.


> Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticiziong hybrids. I'm just pointing out
> that they're probably a short term product. They're not being produced
> in sufficient quantities to meet the demand and the prices are so high
> that you can't recoup the increased cost of the car in fuel savings. I
> suspect that this is because the car companies know that this is not a
> long term solution.

Brian Nystrom

Xiaoding wrote:

> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@att.net> wrote in message news:<hkntc.76680$hH.1418684@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>>Xiaoding wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>That's where the future lies. Hybrids are simply a stop-gap,
>>>>intermediate step until fuel cell technology matures and the
>>>>infrastructure in put in place.
>>>>
>>>>Once that happens, we'll finally be able to tell OPEC to take their oil
>>>>and stick it where the sun don't shine!
>>>
>>>
>>>Really? Where will the energy needed to make the fuel cells come
>>>from? They use hydrogen...which takes OIL to make, since hydrogen is
>>>not a fuel source, it's an energy transfer medium.
>>
>>Not true. The fuel cells that are most likely to make it into production
>>are powered by ethanol or hydrogen peroxide, neither of which come from
>>oil. There are also cells that use propane and LNG, which are available
>>from domestic sources.
>
>
> A quick search on google turns up article after article on hydrogen
> fuel cell cars, not one mention of any other type.

You need to learn to search more effectively. Try going to
www.howstuffworks.com and reading their section on fuel cells, for starters.

> Why bother to make
> ethanol when you can just as easily make oil from the same stuff?
> Hydrogen peroxide? How much is that a gallon? Last time I looked, no
> one was pumping it from the ground, which means it's not a fuel
> source.

You're not making any sense. Ethanol is produced from biomass,
specifically corn.

Why does something have to be pumped from the ground to be a fuel? Wood
isn't pumped from the ground, but it's certainly a fuel source. Not that
I'm suggesting wood burning cars.

>>>What about the
>>>infrastructure needed to store and transport the hydrogen, which is
>>>very very, VERY bulky?
>>
>>Not in liquified form, it's not. Besides, it's not necessary.
>
> Agreed, not needed. Liqiod hydrogen? A laboratoy curiosity, not
> a real world fuel.

Any gas will liquify under pressure. LNG and propane are two very common
examples. Both can be used to power fuel cells.
>
>>>I won't even mention the heavy metals
>>>pollution from millions of dead fuel cells.
>>
>>What heavy metals? We're talking about fuel cells, not batteries.
>>Hybrids are the ones with all the heavy metals in them.
>
> Fuel cells use palladium and other heavy metals.

SOME do.

> Also, the supply of
> these metals is in question, since we would need so much of it.

I wonder how much they use compared to the amount in the catalytic
converters they'll be replacing. My car has two of them and they're not
exactly light weight.
>
>>>In the meantime, oil
>>>reclamation, recycling and biomass conversion is making leaps and
>>>bounds progress, so much so that we may not EVER really need hydrogen
>>>at all.
>>
>>Really? Exactly what "leaps and bounds" are you talking about?
>>
>>You cannot reclaim burned gasoline or diesel fuel, which accounts for
>>the overwhelming bulk of oil consumption in vehicles. At 30 mpg, a car
>>will burn between 100 and 250 gallons of non-reclaimable gasoline
>>between each one gallon reclaimable oil change, depending on the change
>>interval. At lower mpg, the ratio is even higher. In older cars that
>>consume oil due to engine wear, there is even oil to reclaim.
>
> True, burned gas is gone. I am refering to the real-world conversion
> of any biomass, landfill trash, turkey gizzards, old tires, plastic,
> paper, etc., into oil. The process pays for itself, and plants are
> being built as we speak. Estimates are 30% of current oil usage (US)
> can be supplied turning trash back into oil. We can actually eat
> landfills up at one end, truck away oil at the other.

Much of the same material can be used to produce ethanol to power fuel
cells. I also don't see any bio-diesel hybrids on the market, do you?
>
>>>In any case, don't hold your breath waiting for real-world
>>>fuel cell cars, like fusion, it's only a year or so away!! Oh, and
>>>flying cars come out in September! Along with the personal robot
>>>slaves to do all your work for you!
>>
>>Your attempts at hyperbole don't change the fact that there are fuel
>>cell powered cars on the road today and development is ongoing
>>worldwide. If you want to talk about leaps and bounds, fuel cell
>>technology is a good one to look at. A system that filled the back of a
>>small van a few years ago now fits under the body of a compact car and
>>produces more power. The technology exists and the infrastructure can be
>>built. I'll bet that within five years fuel cell filling stations will
>>outnumber bio-diesel stations in the US, though admittedly that's not
>>saying much.
>
> I bet against it. I'm betting on working fusion in the next 1000
> years, though.
>
>>Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticiziong hybrids. I'm just pointing out
>>that they're probably a short term product. They're not being produced
>>in sufficient quantities to meet the demand and the prices are so high
>>that you can't recoup the increased cost of the car in fuel savings. I
>>suspect that this is because the car companies know that this is not a
>>long term solution.