backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 176 comment(s) - last by Jedi2155.. on Aug 15 at 5:16 PM

Prius Converted to Plug-in  (Source: News.com)
Hybrid conversion kits cost around $10,000 on average

There are number of hybrid vehicles on the road today -- including the Toyota Prius -- but the road to full electric vehicles is a long one. The problem with achieving full electric vehicles isn't that manufacturers can't build them; it's that today's battery technology simply doesn't provide the driving range needed by the majority of drivers.

Sales of hybrid vehicles are up and some hybrid owners are taking matters into their own hands with third-party conversions to turn their hybrid vehicles into plug-in hybrids.

Several small startups are trying to woo hybrid car owners -- especially those who own the Toyota Prius -- into their shops to have the vehicles converted into plug-in hybrids. As it ships from the manufacturer, the Toyota Prius does not plug into the electrical grid. Rather, the vehicle uses a gasoline motor that recharges the batteries inside the car to increase overall fuel economy. The Prius can run on electric power alone, but typically does so only for short distances.

Small companies trying to market conversion kits to turn the Prius into a plug-in hybrid are boasting that their plug-in conversions will allow the Prius to be driven 40 miles on batteries alone. The same firms also claim that the overall fuel economy averages about 100 miles per gallon. The catch is that the third-party conversion kits are expensive -- typically costing around $10,000.

However, Felix Kramer founder of CalCars told News.com that there are around 200 plug-in hybrid conversions already on the roads since conversions started in 2004. Kramer looks at the plug-in hybrid realistically. With the current maximum range of 40 miles, the plug-in is the ideal second car in his opinion for commuters who still have a larger SUV or similar vehicle for the weekend or longer trips.

There are a few mechanics and car dealers currently installing plug-in hybrid conversions according to News.com, including Plug-In Supply. The company is selling $5,000 conversion kits that allow the Prius driver to travel 20 miles on fully charged lead acid batteries alone. For $11,000, the driver can get a lithium-iron phosphate battery kit in place of the lead acid batteries. The kit prices don't include installation, which can run another $1,000.

Safety of plug-in converted hybrids has been a concern after a Prius that had been converted burst into flames in June. According to News.com, a third-party investigator blamed improper assembly for the fire, not the hybrid conversion kit itself.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/13/2008 2:52:18 PM , Rating: 5
How does one save money by paying the roughly $5000 premium for a hybrid car then paying another $10k for the LI battery conversion? That does not compute. Considering the car will be dumped in another 5 years, you'll never make up the cost of the vehicle let alone the conversion kit.




RE: Saving money?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/13/2008 3:01:07 PM , Rating: 3
Most hybrids don't make much financial sense to me. I'd take a reasonably fuel efficient car with good handling over a hybrid boat with low rolling resistance tires.


RE: Saving money?
By chris2618 on 8/13/2008 3:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
If you had to pay nearly $10 a gallon they start to make a bit more sense


RE: Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/13/2008 4:21:27 PM , Rating: 3
The argument still applies. You don't spend nearly or even over $30k in car costs plus conversion costs to save money. If you want to save money, REDUCE your costs.

For example: get a cheaper house or just stay in the one you're in for 20 years instead of the typical 10 (move when you retire), keep that old TV instead buying a new one, keep that old computer around for 6 years instead of 3, have two used cars instead of two new one's, turn off lights that aren't being used, only wash clothes and dishes (if you have a dish washer) during off-peak times. I can create a list for you if you like. There's tons of ways to save money. Buying more expensive cars or just plain buying more stuff isn't one of them.


RE: Saving money?
By maverick85wd on 8/13/2008 5:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with all your recommendations for being efficient. At the same time, early adopters pay for what they're doing now so we can all afford them in the future.

If I had the money I'd love to have a car that got me 40 miles a day without having to stop for gas, if for no other reason than it takes time out of my day and can be a nuisance. If I had the money what's an extra 15 grand for that convenience?


RE: Saving money?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2008 5:43:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "...without having to stop for gas, if for no other reason than it takes time out of my day and can be a nuisance. If I had the money what's an extra 15 grand for that convenience?"

The time you save in gassing up a bit less often is going to be far outweighed by the need to plug in and unplug the vehicle every time you stop.


RE: Saving money?
By Jedi2155 on 8/13/2008 7:24:40 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know how long it takes to for one to plug it into a wall outlet but I bet it doesn't take more time over a day than it does to fill up. I fill up about once every week to week and a half for about 320 miles of driving each fill up taking up a minimum of 7-10 minutes of time such as waiting for the slow as heck credit card reader (worse if you pay with cash) plus the extra drive to the station and getting in and out of the car.

Versus driving home into the garage and just plugging it in to the nearest outlet which should take no more than 30 seconds to do each day. In either case these are minuscule amounts of time saved comparable to extra step in the bathroom such as washing your hands after every use which I heartily recommend everyone do.


RE: Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Saving money?
By lightfoot on 8/13/2008 8:44:42 PM , Rating: 2
You do not stand by the car while it is recharging - you do when you refuel.

He is counting the 30 seconds of active participation required to plug in the car, just as it takes 5-10 minutes of active participation to refuel a car. Not that it seems like much of a savings either way.


RE: Saving money?
By omnicronx on 8/13/2008 11:45:54 PM , Rating: 2
Dont forget that you need to leave your car for x amount of hours for it to fully recharge, or you will end up going to the gas station anyways. If you are only using the car for your 10 minute commute to the train station then you have no problem, but what about after getting home from a day of work and having to drive your kids, pick up food, etc etc.. you just are not going to have that long recharge time and you will spend time waiting for your car to charge..

I always laugh at my friend who had a similar conversion done on his prius, when he tells me that he cant come out tonight because he is letting his car charge and it is a fire hazard so he cannot leave.. People never think of that one... which you should considering we are talking about a 3rd party conversion kit here..


RE: Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/13/2008 11:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
Really? Is that something the conversion company wants its customers to do to prevent lawsuits?


RE: Saving money?
By omnicronx on 8/14/2008 8:14:41 AM , Rating: 2
Its a giant battery that is not a stock part.. to me, its pretty much common sense.


RE: Saving money?
By Alexstarfire on 8/14/2008 8:19:47 AM , Rating: 2
Fire hazard? I've yet to hear that one, and I'm pretty well read, and versed, on plug-in conversions.

Anyways... that's the guy's personal preference. He could come out, but doesn't want to. Maybe he's just using that as an excuse?


RE: Saving money?
By whirabomber on 8/14/2008 8:43:15 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, I guess a prius is more likely to burst into flames while driving than charging.

This article does clear up why GM expects folks to pay $30-35k for the Volt.


RE: Saving money?
By omnicronx on 8/14/2008 9:34:41 AM , Rating: 2
Really? because I have never heard of one bursting into flames while driving.. on the other hand...

http://www.dailytech.com/Retrofitted+Plugin+Prius+...


RE: Saving money?
By trisct on 8/14/2008 4:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
Quote:

On its final voyage, the driver noticed that the back seat caught on fire -- the driver then quickly pulled over to the side of the road and was able to exit the vehicle.

/Q

Sounds to me like this actually IS an example of one bursting into flames while driving. Not the other hand at all.


RE: Saving money?
By Jedi2155 on 8/15/2008 5:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind that there is about 40 miles of range on the battery. If you couldn't be bothered to unplug and drive out a lot, just don't plug it in until the end of the day. Unless you're constantly driving around like a night hawk, I'm sure most people are in their homes and not likely to leave for at least 8 hours a day as one typically needs sleep which is enough to charge up the entire battery.


RE: Saving money?
By lothar98 on 8/14/2008 5:50:39 AM , Rating: 2
If that's what you really want, cars like that are already available today, you just have to change your mindset on what you really want to be driving on a daily basis. check this out for instance
http://blogs.thecarconnection.com/blogs/marty_blog...

Most people in the U.S. still think of diesel as a large truck only option. Personally I don't think that's the case anymore.

You can also look up the smart car as another option. Both can get 40 mpg and "fill-up" a lot faster than a pure electric.


RE: Saving money?
By therealnickdanger on 8/14/2008 7:42:01 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Saving money?
By Alexstarfire on 8/14/2008 8:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
ahhh, highway mpg... only suckers look at that to figure out how much mpg a car gets. That may apply to other countries.. but the highways in the US aren't much better than taking local roads when it comes to job commuting.


RE: Saving money?
By rdeegvainl on 8/14/2008 10:43:07 AM , Rating: 2
or people that it actually applies to. Take michigan for example. lots of highway driving, that isn't backed up. Easy to get optimal mileage on the highway, like the stretch between reed city and cadillac that I lived by. 30 miles of easy going 4 lane highway. It actually stretches down to grand rapids. Or in my mother-in-laws example, she drives to peoples homes all around the northern michigan area, taking in mostly highway miles. yeah I know, not everyone situation is like that, but to say only suckers look at that, is to completely write off anyone that does a lot of driving.


RE: Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/14/2008 11:53:44 AM , Rating: 2
I look at hwy miles because that's my typical drive. I get right smack on the hwy figure for my car and I have a leadfoot. Driving a bit more sedately and without any trick driving methods, I can get 33 mpg easily. If you live in an urban area, then hwy mileage is meaningless but that doesn't mean it doesn't apply to everyone.


RE: Saving money?
By Solandri on 8/13/2008 4:54:53 PM , Rating: 5
Assume $5k premium plus $10k battery conversion.

Average U.S. electricity cost is $0.10/kWh.
A Prius uses approx $0.262 kWh/mile.
That works out to 2.62 cents/mile.

Say a Prius-equivalent gas car gets 35 mpg.
At $10/gal, that works out to 28.57 cents/mile.

The all-electric Prius saves you $0.2595/mile.
To make back the $15k initial investment would thus take 57,800 miles.

If gas is $4/gal, the gas car uses 11.43 cents/mile.
To make back the $15k initial investment would then take 170,260 miles.

(Beware people saying gas cars cost $0.50-$0.80/mile. I've seen at least one electric car proponent make this mistake. That cost includes depreciation, licensing, insurance, etc. All of these are costs that an electric car would incur as well. The $ cost of operating a gas car is just the gasoline burned plus any maintenance needed above an electric car.)


RE: Saving money?
By SilthDraeth on 8/13/2008 5:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
and at an average driving rate of 5k per year, it would take 10 years to make up the cost of $10 per gallon gas, or nearly 35 years at $4 dollar a gallon gas.

If you drive more per day than lower the total time.

That is why a Prius makes no sense over a Corolla unless you pay the exact same price for either or.


RE: Saving money?
By blaster5k on 8/13/2008 5:21:41 PM , Rating: 3
I bought a Civic not long ago (to replace a 17-year old compact). Since I drive maybe 10k miles a year at most, the hybrid didn't make any sense. And cars without manual shifters are no fun anyway.


RE: Saving money?
By othercents on 8/14/2008 10:11:36 AM , Rating: 2
Same here, but I purchased a used 1999 Civic with cash from the sale of my 2006 Altima. Now I don't have a $350 per month car payment, I drive 300 miles per month to and from work, and the Civic gets around 30 miles per gallon. When you are comparing something you own against something you have to get a loan for, it doesn't make much sense. However if you own an SUV that gets 15 mpg and can get a Prius for the same loan payment, then it might make more sense.

However If gas got all the way up to $10 a gallon, I would buy a bike and pedal to work. $100 per month on gas to drive 14 miles to and from work when I could just as easily pedal there is ridiculous.

D


RE: Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/14/2008 11:56:06 AM , Rating: 2
I'll take $100 a month at $10 gas. That's nothing. We spend more than that in a week between our two cars.


RE: Saving money?
By theoflow on 8/14/2008 3:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't mean to be rude, and I am not telling you to bike to work, but why not start biking to work now?

I live about 10 miles from work and have been thinking about starting to bike to work. I even think 3/4 of the trip has a bike lane.

I am just wondering what are the reasons why people don't bike to work so I can convince myself that I should bike to work.


RE: Saving money?
By roastmules on 8/15/2008 2:50:04 AM , Rating: 2
However, if you look at current prices, a 5-year old Prius is worth more than a 1-2 year old Suburban...

I recently had my grandmother in-law buy a big SUV, since it was cheap, and she only drives about 100mi/month. The total cost is quite cheap, as for 100mi/month the price of gas is negligible.

I however, have a 300-HP, AWD, 27-mpg Volvo V70R. Great power, handling and good mileage to boot - better than any SUV, and just as much cargo capacity.


RE: Saving money?
By Alexstarfire on 8/14/2008 8:29:30 AM , Rating: 2
5k? What have you been looking at? The average amount driven per year is closer to 12k, and the government says 15k. If you drive 5k then that's great. The best way to save money is to not drive, but it's far from the yearly average in the US.


RE: Saving money?
By blaster5k on 8/13/2008 5:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
That doesn't factor in any added maintenance costs as a result of the conversion. I don't think the extra battery will go the distance without being replaced.

But anyway, it seems the only way you get a payback in any reasonable time is by NOT being environmentally friendly and driving a heck of a lot.


RE: Saving money?
By JustTom on 8/13/2008 5:38:40 PM , Rating: 2
This is a good point. But how much maintenence is saved on the gas motor because it is being used so much less often?


RE: Saving money?
By calyth on 8/13/2008 6:37:16 PM , Rating: 2
AFAIK, the engine oil has detergents that also break down over time. Hence the advice that if you put a car for storage, give it new oil, and when you start to drive it again, change that oil again.

So not using the gas engine that often doesn't linearly decrease the cost of maintaining it, I think.


RE: Saving money?
By mindless1 on 8/13/2008 9:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
It definitely decreases the cost of maintaining it. Variable speed engines driven constantly break down the oil faster, require more frequent oil changes and typically use more oil.

Put a good synthetic in a small engine and don't run it often and you can easily go a few years between oil changes. Further, there's a lot more to engine maintenance costs than an oil change and if it's designed to be reasonably yielding to the owner changing the oil then you don't even have to pay shop overhead to do it nor be annoyed by their taking your air filter/etc out trying to sell you a new one.

If someone does it themselves and supposing the annual cost of the oil change were $20, that's a mere $200 over a 10 year span which is a very low cost for most automobile maintenance and repair.

Use something mechanical more often and it breaks down sooner unless designed so well that it runs until all the parts have rotted or rusted away.


RE: Saving money?
By blaster5k on 8/13/2008 11:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
You can get more wear over time though if the car is exposed to the elements -- even if it doesn't have as much use. Here in New England, we've got big temperature swings and salts used on the roads during the winter. These take their toll on a car.

The temperatures are also bad for some battery types and can significantly reduce their life.


RE: Saving money?
By Doormat on 8/13/2008 5:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
The US average is something around 12-13K mi/yr. So at $4/gal, that's 13 years. You'd be buying a new battery before then, resetting 2/3rds of the price. You're not likely to catch up, ever.

At $10/gal its an easy decision to make - under 5 years. But it'll be a while before we get there (I'm figuring average gas prices will go up $1/yr for the foreseeable future).


RE: Saving money?
By FITCamaro on 8/13/2008 6:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
If we start drilling our own oil and increasing our refining capacity, it'll likely fall.


RE: Saving money?
By websfear on 8/13/2008 10:30:04 PM , Rating: 2
You have either been smoking something weird or you really believe that piece of crap line.

They can drill all they want, and even build new refineries - it isn't going to matter one bit because it is all going to go to China, Japan or Europe.

Unless they can impose a limit on the Oil Companies that oil drilled in the US must stay in the US, we will never be oil independent.


RE: Saving money?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2008 10:44:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "They can drill all they want, and even build new refineries - it isn't going to matter one bit because it is all going to go to China, Japan or Europe"

Eh? Oil is a world commodity; the laws of supply and demand still apply. If the US -- or any other nation -- increases production, it will reduce prices. This is inescapable. Furthermore, oil is fungible, meaning each barrel of new production has essentially the same effect, no matter where its produced.

Now, if demand is escalating extremely quickly, prices may continue to rise despite supply increases. However that's irrelevant. Without that new supply, prices would have risen even further...so the new production did in fact lower prices as compared to what they would have otherwise been.


RE: Saving money?
By bpurkapi on 8/13/2008 11:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
You supply more oil and the price goes down a little and suddenly more people are once again using more oil. This is a never ending cycle, when you look at the millions of Chinese and Indians just buying their first cars you can see how the supply of oil will never be able to truly match demand. A small price decrease due to new supplies is quickly gobbled up by a very hungry world.


RE: Saving money?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2008 1:17:21 AM , Rating: 1
To correct two fallacies in your post, demand always equals supply. It's a commmon misconception that demand can perpetually be larger than supply. If this were true, the gas pumps would soon be running dry...world stocks are generally only a couple months worth.

The larger fallacy is that a small supply increase can't have a large effect on prices. Oil prices follow a relatively inelastic curve. Just as a small decrease in supply can cause prices to skyrocket, a small increase can cause a huge decrease.

Take a look at recent US consumption data, for instance. A doubling of gasoline prices resulted in only a 4% drop in consumption. By corollary, a 4% increase in supply would -- holding all other factors constant -- result in close to a 50% drop in prices.


RE: Saving money?
By jabber on 8/14/2008 5:54:26 AM , Rating: 1
Supply always equals demand?

Nintendo Wii?


RE: Saving money?
By Alexstarfire on 8/14/2008 8:35:49 AM , Rating: 2
Well, he's not exactly wrong. You can't buy more than there already is; therefore, you can't ever exceed the supply, but he's still wrong. Demand doesn't always equal supply. Just look at the ET game on the Atari and tell me that line again. How many were put into landfills because they didn't sell..... 2.5 million or so of the 4 million produced. Yea, that's close enough to be equal.


RE: Saving money?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2008 9:08:47 AM , Rating: 2
> "Supply always equals demand? Nintendo Wii?"

You didn't read the entire post. Supply always equals demand in a situation (such as gasoline) where stocks aren't increasing or decreasing.

The Wii makes the point. Demand outstripped supply...and the shelves quickly ran empty, preventing people from buying product.

Until you see gas pumps running dry (or the converse, gasoline being dumped because all the storage tanks are full), supply equals demand.


RE: Saving money?
By Alexstarfire on 8/14/2008 8:47:07 AM , Rating: 3
The first part of your comparison is pretty accurate. Large increase in price didn't take much off of the supply. A lot of that comes from that fact that we HAVE to get to work. Many people live far away from where they work. I know at my parent's work place they have a couple people who drive 2 hours on the HIGHWAY to get to work. They live something like 50+ miles away. That's just stupid, but far from the point.

If you honestly believe a 4% increase in supply would result in a 50% drop in price... then you are smoking some of the good stuff my friend. No doubt the price would drop.... but you forget that the demand will just increase to pick up the slack. Increases in price don't hurt demand that much. The same can't be said about big decreases in price. Big decreases in price... all at once... just means that demand is going to kick in because people think..."what a deal." They rush to buy it before the price goes back up. As a result... the price goes up. Maybe not back to normal... but still increases... and rather quickly.


RE: Saving money?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2008 9:14:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you honestly believe a 4% increase in supply would result in a 50% drop in price... then you are smoking some of the good stuff my friend. No doubt the price would drop.... but you forget that the demand will just increase to pick up the slack
I don't forget that at all; it's an essential part of the analysis. Demand *always* equals supply. How much of a price drop does it take to force us to use 4% more gasoline? 50% -- according to the most recent US usage data.

Price exerts little influence on how much US drivers use their vehicles. Over the past year, prices doubled...and we only cut our driving by 4%. The inescapable corollary of that is that prices would have to drop back to the same level to force us to return to that same level of consumption.

Hence, a 4% increase in supply would (again, holding all other factors constant) result in a 50% drop in prices. Plain and simple.


RE: Saving money?
By JustTom on 8/14/2008 10:53:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Take a look at recent US consumption data, for instance. A doubling of gasoline prices resulted in only a 4% drop in consumption. By corollary, a 4% increase in supply would -- holding all other factors constant -- result in close to a 50% drop in prices.


This is not necessarily true. Shifting supply 4%, increasing the amount of gasoline available at any given price point by 4%, has no effect on the demand curve. The inelasticity of the demand curve demonstrated by a decrease of only 4% after doubling of prices indicates an increase of 4% in supplies would do little to lower prices. The actual decrease in price would be determined on how elastic the supply curve is. It is highly unlikely the inelasticity of the demand curve is matched by the supply curve. If you draw the curves you can easily visualize this. If a doubling in price brought about a 4% decrease in demand the resultant demand curve is highly inelastic. The highly inelastic nature of the demand curve argues against small changes in the supply curve creating large price changes.
Drillings primary benefit to the U.S. is not lower gasoline prices, although it would certainly help, but lower trade deficits.


RE: Saving money?
By BZDTemp on 8/14/2008 7:29:02 AM , Rating: 1
In your dreams.

The US is drilling all ready and actually started the whole "drill for oil" thing. For a long time the US production has been going down and new drilling will have to be very substantial to even do more than slightly slow down the drop in production.

Face it - the US uses so much oil more than a few fields will make any real difference. Plus it is a global market and I can't see India, China or Russia doing anything but needing more in the coming years. After all they are far behind the US in comsumption (Which btw. uses twice the energy of anyone else).

What could make a difference in the US is going away from those trucks and start running real compact cars with high mpg. Still even that is just a token - just try googling "peak oil". Be warned though it is grim reading!


RE: Saving money?
By Solandri on 8/14/2008 1:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
Comparing raw energy use across countries is stupid, like comparing the gas mileage of a bus vs. a car and declaring the car is the more efficient choice. Each country has different populations and different levels of economic productivity.

Of developed nations, Canada, Iceland, and Norway all use more energy per capita than the U.S. (Singapore too, but they're a city-state.) Iceland splurges on energy because they get so much of it free from geothermal and hydro (99.9%). Canada and Norway are major oil producing nations, and go figure it takes a lot of energy to extract energy.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_pri_ene_con_...

In terms of Energy Intensity (energy consumed per $ GDP generated), the U.S. is only slightly above the world average.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...


RE: Saving money?
By FliGuyRyan on 8/13/2008 9:11:53 PM , Rating: 4
Ha, this displays the boatloads of ignorance of you and your comment. Our Prius now has high-performance (and no, I don't mean F1 racing either) tires and I'm getting 45 miles a gallon. My car handles almost (slightly less - for those less intelligent) as well as my other car with Toyos and low profiles.

We bought our Prius for $17K with 40k miles on it and it was pristine. I wouldn't have done it any other way considering it will hold almost the cubic feet of a Chevy S10 with a hard-shell over the bed.

I'll take my Prius...
-RC


RE: Saving money?
By lightfoot on 8/13/2008 9:22:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We bought our Prius for $17K with 40k miles on it and it was pristine.


That is a great deal for you - but the question remains, was it a great deal for the original owner - the one who paid the premium and only drove it $40,000 miles during which time it depreciated $7,000.

Also how would that compare with other used vehicles?


RE: Saving money?
By Alexstarfire on 8/14/2008 9:33:35 AM , Rating: 2
It wouldn't. It'd be horrible. You can get quite a few domestic sedans for under $10k and only a few years old. The thing is... I wouldn't want a used domestic car. New ones are iffy enough.


RE: Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/14/2008 12:15:01 AM , Rating: 1
So what. I have a friend that bought an 2002 Prius for $1200 because it had a bad inverter. Fixed the inverter for $200. Discovered that gas engine was on it's way out and bought one from Japan for $400. $1800 total with all the work done by himself and he has a perfectly good car.

I could even justify this. Even if he had to drop $4000 on new batteries, that's still less than $6000 total invested. Now THAT'S a good deal. You got hosed in comparison.


RE: Saving money?
By Alexstarfire on 8/14/2008 8:39:14 AM , Rating: 2
Well.... whoever sold that car was a moron then. You just got lucky. That's by and far not what you're going to find most of the time.


RE: Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/14/2008 12:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't buy the car. It was a co-worker. Hey, it can happen. People aren't mechanics and it is a 6 year old car. The guy probably wanted a new one. The cheapest I've found were in the $8000 range but they were in running condition. I don't know how much one would cost that's not running.


RE: Saving money?
By FITCamaro on 8/13/2008 3:08:02 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. You're going to spend $6-12,000 to save an extra few hundred dollars a year on gas? Let's say you saved an extra $400 a year on gas, it take you 15 years to make up that difference. So even at $800 a year, that's 7 and a half years to make up the difference. Then if you get the lithium ion battery those time periods are doubled. It's doubtful you'll keep the car 7 and a half years much less 15. And 30 years...yeah I doubt it. Plus the battery wouldn't last that long anyway and you'd have to pay to replace it. That's another $4-5,000.


RE: Saving money?
By kamel5547 on 8/13/2008 4:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... I don't agree with pretty much any of your figures. I rounded my calculations the worse way possible for my calculations.

My car (Camry) is 10 years old, 180,000+ miles. That makes roughly 18,000 miles per year. (I know its higher than average, but even at 12000 miles per year and 3.50 per gallon you save $770 per year.) Compared to the current Camry its 1 MPG less, so there isn't much difference there.

Assuming I would keep my next vehicle as long and maintain my current driving habits (and buy new) here are how the numbers would stack up for me based on gas averaging at $3.50 for the period (based on current government estimates).

(model,MSRP,combined EPA mileage,total gas usuage, fuel costs lifetime/cost per yer)
2008 Camry LE
21795 MSRP
25 MPG
7200 Gallons
$25200/$2520

2008 Prius + options
23595 MSRP
46 MPG
3913 Gallons
$13685/$1368

I won't ever make the argument that buying a hybrid (or pretty much any other vehicle) for the sole sake of saving money makes sense, but if you are in the market for a new vehicle, then it may not be any more expensive assuming you don't get a new car every 3 years.


RE: Saving money?
By TomZ on 8/13/2008 5:30:17 PM , Rating: 1
That's an invalid comparison because the Prius is a smaller car compared to a Camry. If you want an apples-to-apples comparison, you should compare the Camry to the Camry Hybrid.

Assuming your mileage is 80% highway, then the two models get:

Camry LE: 21*20% + 31*80% = 29MPG
Camry Hybrid: 33*20% + 34*80% = 33.8MPG

So at 18,000/year adn $3.50/gallon, that works out to $2172/year for the LE and $1864/year for the hybrid. The difference is about $300/year.

The cost difference between the two models is about $26,150 - $21,650 = $4500. Dividing that by $300/year is a 15-year breakeven, which exceeds the usable lifetime of the car.

And of course that assumes zero inflation...

So I agree with you that buying a hybrid, at today's prices, probably makes no sense for most people economically. A hybrid only really makes sense if you've got "money to burn."


RE: Saving money?
By Alexstarfire on 8/14/2008 9:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
Well, if you're going to compare a regular crap to it's crappy hybrid couterpart then yes, it's never going to look good. People compare it to the Prius because it's a hybrid from the ground up, not just tacked on. It gets better mileage as a result.

BTW, both the Camry and Prius are in the same vehicle class, mid-size. And looking at actual sizes the Camry is 6 cubic ft bigger, 110.6 compared to 116.4. That's not much difference. Most of it is in the passenger compartment. The truck is only .6 cubic feet bigger.


RE: Saving money?
By TomZ on 8/14/2008 10:10:11 AM , Rating: 2
It's not just the size of the cars that is different, but also the aerodynamics, rolling resistance, weight, etc. The Prius is fully optimized for high MPG. The Camry is more of a compromize design that gives you a slightly larger car with nicer styling and uses normal tires while still giving decent fuel economy.

Conversely, if you put a conventional IC powertrain into the Prius, you'd see pretty high gas mileage due to the chassis improvements.

So it's not that the Camry hybrid is "crappy" - it's just not totally optimized for efficiency like the Prius is. And it targets a different kind of buyer than Prius.


RE: Saving money?
By FITCamaro on 8/13/2008 6:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't talking about hybrid vs. non-hybrid. I was talking about spending the money for the conversion kit to improve the hybrids mileage.


RE: Saving money?
By walk2k on 8/13/2008 3:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
Why would it be dumped in 5 years??

Sure you can make up a bunch of scenarios that don't make sense. "DURR I only drive 25 miles a year and get a new car every 2 months tHIS SUXXX!!!!1"

Yeah ok, how about a scenario that DOES make sense?

If you drive 50k miles a year, getting 40mpg in a Prius, that's 1250 gallons of gas, at $4.50 a gallon (average around here) that's over $5600 a year in gas, this thing would pay for itself in less than 2 years.

You also aren't funding terrorism or destroying the planet... if those are things that matter to you.


RE: Saving money?
By thornburg on 8/13/2008 3:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
You are both being extreme. 5 year life span in a car is very short-sighted. Toyota warranties the battery pack in a Prius for something like 8 years, so you figure at LEAST 8 years life on the car. 10 seems reasonable.

OTOH, driving 50,000 miles a year would be a minute portion of the population. However, lots of people do drive 20,000 miles in a year, so saving $1500+ per year is a reasonable assumption, especially if they are gambling that the price of gas will go back up, and keep rising. If the average cost of a gallon of gas over the next 8 years is $7, then hybrids and other very-high-efficiency vehicles will have paid off nicely. OTOH, if gas drops to $3.00 and stays there for a while, only creeping up slowly, say, averaging $4.25 over the next 8 years, then the hybrids are an OK choice, but something like a Yaris or Cobalt XFE would be a more economically sound choice.


RE: Saving money?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2008 3:56:49 PM , Rating: 1
> "If the average cost of a gallon of gas over the next 8 years is $7..."

I'll lay any sum of money anyone cares to wager that the average price of gasoline over the next 8 years won't break $5, much less $7.


RE: Saving money?
By lightfoot on 8/13/2008 7:28:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'll lay any sum of money anyone cares to wager that the average price of gasoline over the next 8 years won't break $5, much less $7.

Not if Obama has his way. Cap and Tax (I mean trade) could easily drive gas prices up to $8 per gallon, if not higher.

Europe already pays $7-8 per gallon and most of that is in tax.


RE: Saving money?
By jabber on 8/14/2008 5:57:40 AM , Rating: 2
We wish!

Make it $10+

You guys are still living in the early 1990's, enjoy it.

If I moved to the US your gas is still so cheap to what I'm used to paying I'd drive a 68 Dodge Charger everywhere and still think it cheap.


RE: Saving money?
By Alexstarfire on 8/14/2008 8:51:06 AM , Rating: 2
I'd stake all the money I'll ever make in my lifetime on that one. If you asked me 4 years ago if the average gas price would come close to $4 a gallon I'd have looked at your funny and just laughed. Yet look at where we are today. It's not as high as it was, like $3.50 a gallon on average now... but I don't forsee it going any lower.


RE: Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/14/2008 12:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
$4 a gallon I'd have looked at your funny and just laughed.
I wouldn't have laughed. I expected it but not this soon. I figured another couple of years yet.


RE: Saving money?
By futrtrubl on 8/13/2008 4:11:41 PM , Rating: 3
Has nobody thought about the cost of the electricity in all this? The energy to get you those 40 miles has to come from somewhere. I don't know the price of electricity in the USA and I don't know the amount of energy required to recharge the batteries for a 40 mile journey (not the same as the amount of energy required to do the journey due to inefficiency in charging) but it will make it less cost effective and environmentally friendly (electricity must be produced, mostly from fossil fuels), almost definitely significantly less.

Edward


RE: Saving money?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2008 4:22:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"I don't know the amount of energy required to recharge the batteries for a 40 mile journey (not the same as the amount of energy required to do the journey due to inefficiency in charging
NiMH batteries used in current hybrids have a rather poor coulumetric charging efficiency -- generally around 66%. Li-Ion batteries, however, are nearly perfectly efficient here, as high as 99%.

The real benefit is that electric power plants, even those operating from fossil fuels, have efficies much higher than a typical ICE. Over its entire RPM range, most car engines average arond 25% efficiency, whereas many coal plants approach 50%.


RE: Saving money?
By walk2k on 8/13/2008 4:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
It's extreme maybe but my friend drives over 50k a year. As I said gas is already well over $4.25, its over $4.50 even, and that's DOWN from a few weeks ago. It's only going to go UP from here, don't kid yourself. In Europe they have been paying $7-8 for YEARS.

The Prius batteries are warranted for 10 years I believe.

UC Davis did a study that figured a plugin car costs about 75 cents per gallon equiv. That's roughly $1 savings per 10 miles driven - at 20k a year that's $2000, this will pay for itself in 5 years and that's with an expensive aftermarket kit, when Toyota/etc start mass producing them it won't be a $10k premium, more like the $2-3k of hybrids now.


RE: Saving money?
By Solandri on 8/13/2008 7:52:07 PM , Rating: 3
50k miles/yr is a moot point since you can't do it on all-electric with this vehicle, at least not realistically at this point in time. It has a 40 mile range with an 8 hour recharge time. If you lived 40 miles from work, your work place allowed you recharge at work, and you worked 250 days/yr (50 weeks, 5 days/wk), you'd only rack up 20,000 miles. If you drove 40 miles each weekend day, that would add another 4,160 miles. Well short of 50,000 miles. Heck, you can't even achieve 20k miles unless you recharge at work. Charging overnight (when electric rates are cheapest and there's the most excess capacity) will only get you 14,600 miles/yr if you drive the max 40 miles every day.

Maybe in the future when every supermarket and Kwik-E-Mart has a high amperage quick recharge station, you'll be able to drive 50k miles/yr in one of these vehicles. But my bet is on battery technology increasing the range long before that happens.


RE: Saving money?
By Zoomer on 8/13/2008 8:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
"It's only going to go UP from here, don't kid yourself. In Europe they have been paying $7-8 for YEARS."

Unless US excise tax policy on gasoline changes, this is highly impossible.


RE: Saving money?
By lightfoot on 8/13/2008 8:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...tax policy on gasoline changes, this is highly impossible.


That would take a politician who threatens to raise taxes on the middle class and wealthy, one who pushes Cap and Trade as a solution to our wealth problem (I mean "pollution" problem,) someone who threatens to INCREASE taxes on oil (called a "windfall" tax, but we all know who ends up paying,) and someone who refuses to invest in domestic production of oil. Good thing we only have one candidate like that running for president - what are the odds that he will win? At best 65-70%. Clearly impossible.


RE: Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/13/2008 5:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
LOL! I'm extreme? Ok. I guess no one buys a new car every 5 years, right? The car companies just refresh cars every 5 years for the hell of it, right?. Statistics showing people buying new cars every 5 years are BS too, right?

Why is it that people here think that their niche views are the norm? I mean I buy a car every 10 years so everyone else must do that too. Nope. It's every 5 years.


RE: Saving money?
By mindless1 on 8/13/2008 9:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
Actually no, statistics tend to show averages closer to 9 years. http://www.wheels.ca/article/191892

Realize this doesn't even count those people who don't get out and around much so they weren't participating in such surveys but would tend to have older than average automobiles.

Remember a lot of cars younger than that weren't even deliberately retired but were instead totalled, though that would still have to be considered a factor with a hybrid.

Yes, it's a bit extreme for a environmentally conscious tree hugger to replace their car frequently, though with a hybrid there is a reasonable counter argument in selling it while the battery has enough life left in it to be useful to the next owner, a lot of people wouldn't buy a used 10 year old car expecting to have to spend $10K to replace the battery. I suspect a lot of hybrids will be retrofitted with SLA in a few years if Li-Ion prices don't plummet.

As for car refresh rates they have a need to produce and have 3rd party support for compatible parts and constantlly retooling and redesigning wouldn't have a good financial return so they make more sweeping changes when they have enough technology or public style change perceptions to be worthwhile breaking the former compatibility of a model.


RE: Saving money?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2008 10:16:48 PM , Rating: 2
> "Actually no, statistics tend to show averages closer to 9 years. "

Oops, you've confused the average age of the US fleet with the average time a car buyer keeps their new car. They're two wholly different statistics.

Yes, the 'average' car on the road is 9 years old...but by then, its usually been sold at least once.

> "Realize this doesn't even count those people who don't get out and around much "

Eh? The survey wasn't done by eyeballing cars on the road; its done by analyzing registration data from all 50 states. If your car is registered, it's counted.


RE: Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/14/2008 12:25:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oops, you've confused the average age of the US fleet with the average time a car buyer keeps their new car.
Yep he did. CNW Marketing Research says that the average buyer keeps their car 59 months.


RE: Saving money?
By porkpie on 8/14/2008 12:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't kept a car 59 months ever. I buy a new one every 4 years like clockwork.


RE: Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/14/2008 12:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
Me either. My wife's cars have been leases and we've turned them in every 3 years. With one exception, I've kept my cars 4 years, sold them and bought a new one (no negative equity here). The exception was a car I kept for 12 years because I really liked it. I like my present car even more and have no idea when I'll get rid of it.


RE: Saving money?
By Solandri on 8/14/2008 1:57:53 PM , Rating: 2
Stats like this really need to be based on the median, not the mean. If you take the mean, one guy holding onto his car for 20 years can really skew the figure upwards.

A median is like one person, one vote. A mean is like your vote is proportional in size to whatever you're measuring. So it's like the folks keeping their car 4 years get 4 votes, while the guy keeping his car 20 years gets 20 votes.


RE: Saving money?
By Nik00117 on 8/13/2008 3:56:46 PM , Rating: 4
I'm a car sales man and I have crunched the figures and done the math several times over.

At the end of the day, get a car that suits your needs. I had a guy come in the other day and save over 12,000 off sticker price on his brand new truck. Granted it was the end of the year model, and his situation was perfect in every sense of the word. But $12,000 savings? If you want a great vechilie at cheap, don't look for fuel effiencey. Look at something that serves your needs and you may just end up with a kick ass deal.

I meanthe idea of offering nay serious rebates/discounts on anything like a focus, calibar or hybird escape at my dealership is laughable those cars are rolling off the lot left and right. Now if you want a Ford-350 hey, I can get you a kick ass deal on that without a question.

Honsetly the answer isn't in "hybirds" its in diesel. I've seen the clean european diesels and quite frankly they are brilliant. Regular mid size sedans crushing focus MPG numbers. At the same cost too!


RE: Saving money?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2008 4:38:51 PM , Rating: 3
> "Honsetly the answer isn't in "hybirds" its in diesel. I've seen the clean european diesels and quite frankly they are brilliant. Regular mid size sedans crushing focus MPG numbers. At the same cost too!"

Diesel engines are more expensive than gas, even before you add in the prodigous amounts of plumbing required to meet emissions standards.

And diesel and hybrid aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Hybrid diesel technology is already prevalent for trains, seagoing ships, and other areas....at some point, I expect that to trickle down to personal autos.


RE: Saving money?
By jabber on 8/14/2008 6:05:22 AM , Rating: 2
They are not that much more then the petrol engines.

Usually its around £1000 difference in the UK and you can adjust that if you cut back on the useless extras one it tempted to load onto a car.

In fact if you try car configurators for a lot of the euro car sites the diesel option comes in at around the same price now. The fact folks want them has brought them into line with the petrol versions.

A lot lot better then the hybrid way.

Though I'm still waiting for more 1000cc, high efficiency twin turbo engines with around 80hp+ to catch on. Thats where I'd spend my money as a city driver.


RE: Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/14/2008 12:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
Here in the US, the price difference is usually $5k or more. The diesels are usually on the premium models too.


RE: Saving money?
By lightfoot on 8/13/2008 8:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honsetly the answer isn't in "hybirds" its in diesel.

Don't forget that gasoline and diesel prices are related to each other. The ratio of gas and diesel per barrel of oil is relatively fixed. If everyone were to convert to diesel vehicles diesel prices would skyrocket while gasoline would become a waste product. The price of gasoline would plummet - making gasoline a far more cost effective solution. Transportation and shipping prices would also skyrocket because trains, ships and trucks (big rigs) have no alternative fuel to diesel.

Conversely if everyone drove vehicles powered with gasoline the price of diesel fuel would fall, but only to a point. Diesel can be converted to gasoline using a "cracking" process. A process that currently cannot be done in reverse.

Long story short - diesel is NOT the answer. In fact with the recent run up in diesel prices it is reasonable to assume that the US market is probably in fairly good balance between gas and diesel powered vehicles. Neither fuel currently has a decisive price advantage over the other. A few more diesels would probably be good, but a wholesale transition to diesel would be disastrous.


RE: Saving money?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2008 8:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
> " The ratio of gas and diesel per barrel of oil is relatively fixed. If everyone were to convert to diesel vehicles diesel prices would skyrocket while gasoline would become a waste product..."

Not quite. Oil refining is quite sophisticated today. Diesel-length fractions can be cracked down to gasoline, and gas fractions can be reformed up to diesel. It adds a little to the cost, but it's already being done to a limited degree by most every refinery.


RE: Saving money?
By lightfoot on 8/13/2008 9:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
I've never seen a reforming (unification) process that can produce diesel. Gasoline yes, diesel no. Of course I don't specialize in oil refining so I could be mistaken.

Please link to source - I'm curious to know more.


RE: Saving money?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2008 10:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
Reformation typically converts naptha into gasoline and stops there, because gasoline demand is higher. Some small amount of the diesel fractions are also usually cracked into gas to equalize demand.

But they're all hydrocarbons, and its possible to reform gaseous methane and butane all the way up to asphalt or vice versa. Obviously the more conversion you have to perform, the higher the final cost. . . and moving up to longer chains is normally endothermic, which means energy must be input as well. Two extreme examples are the Fischer-Tropsch Process, which upconverts hydrogen and CO into gas and diesel, and the Bergius Process, which downconverts coal into gas and diesel.

I don't have a link for you, but this is basic organic chemistry. Any of the industry websites will probably have more details.


RE: Saving money?
By lightfoot on 8/13/2008 11:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the info - I know the chemical process is possible, but I didn't think it produced more energy than the conversion required or was cost effective. As you pointed out the further the upconversion the less cost effective it is.


RE: Saving money?
By FITCamaro on 8/13/2008 3:59:58 PM , Rating: 3
You aren't saving anything. Cars aren't destroying the planet any more than a cow farting is. Stop lying to people.

And as far as funding terrorism, we get very little of our oil from the Middle East. And if we started drilling our own oil, we wouldn't have to buy as much. Of course we need to pair that with increasing our refining capacity so we don't have to import refined fuel as well.


RE: Saving money?
By HsiKai on 8/13/2008 5:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
Not going to say that statistically we don't get "very little oil" from the Middle East, but with respect to crude oil we do get more than 2 million barrels per day imported from Saudi Arabia and Iraq alone. That's 2 million out of just under 10 million barrels per day. More than a fifth of our oil coming directly from the Middle East is still a rather significant number (See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_... ). That's on top of the 1.1 million barrels we export each day. I would be interested in where all the oil we purchase from South America and Mexico comes from. Is the majority of it still from Venezuela?

quote:
Cars aren't destroying the planet any more than a cow farting is. Stop lying to people.

Proof? How are higher CO2 emissions from cars only as bad as from cows? Stop making things up; at least link me to a cow that runs on diesel.


RE: Saving money?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2008 5:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
> "That's 2 million out of just under 10 million barrels per day."

Total US oil consumption is 20 million bbl/day, not 10.

> "Proof? How are higher CO2 emissions from cars only as bad as from cows? Stop making things up;"

He is correct. Meat production accounts for more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation sector, including cars, trucks, buses, trains, and air travel:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5349


RE: Saving money?
By HsiKai on 8/13/2008 8:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
It no doubt accounts for a significant amount of greenhouse gases, but what he specifically alluded to were cows standing around. He did not say "the production, transportation, and consumption" of "world cattle populations."

Also, your link only indicates the entire world's emissions for each. It does not take into account a significantly increasing demand for vehicles in developing countries which will likely outpace cattle industry emissions, though I'd like to see some numbers either way.

quote:
Total US oil consumption is 20 million bbl/day, not 10.

We were talking about oil imports not total consumption. If anything the CIA indicates it's 13.3 million bbl/day in 2004. Since you didn't follow my link here's what the CIA World Factbook says:

quote:
Oil - production: 8.322 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil - consumption: 20.8 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil - exports: 1.048 million bbl/day (2004)
Oil - imports: 13.15 million bbl/day (2004)
Ref: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world...


Meanwhile, the EIA (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_... ), part of the DoE, says that:

quote:
Total crude oil imports averaged 9.994 million barrels per day in June, which is a increase of (0.337) million barrels per day from May 2008.


Please follow my links next time.


RE: Saving money?
By lightfoot on 8/13/2008 8:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It does not take into account a significantly increasing demand for vehicles in developing countries which will likely outpace cattle industry emissions

It's unreasonable to assume that demand for meat won't increase at at least the rate that demand for vehicles will.
quote:
Between 1996 and 2003, Chinese meat production rose by 51%

http://www.food-business-review.com/article_news.a...

It is well documented that as incomes rise people tend to add more protein to their diet. Food will almost always trump transportation when it comes to discretionary spending.


RE: Saving money?
By HsiKai on 8/13/2008 9:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
In reply to both you and Masher:

At least in the United States, according to this PEW Center report entitled "Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
From U.S. Transportation", in 2003 the transportation sector accounted for 33% of all CO2 emissions in the United States with a projection of 36% in 2020. That's only 27% of all GHG emissions, but compared to all of the agriculture sector's 8% that's more than a 300% greater GHG emission.
quote:
In terms of carbon dioxide, which accounts for 95 percent of transportation’s GHG emissions, transportation is the largest and fastest growing end-use sector. Today, the U.S. transportation sector accounts for one-third of all U.S. end-use sector CO2 emissions, and if projections hold, this share will rise to 36 percent by 2020. U.S. transportation is also a major emitter on a global scale. Each year it produces more CO2 emissions than any other nation’s entire economy, except China.
(Ref: http://www.ethanol-gec.org/information/briefing/9.... ) -- Pg. 7


Cows may produce more methane than cars, but in total GHG tonnage they are at less than a third of the transportation sector. The problem with your math is that you are including transportation costs, electricity costs and generation, as well as food production for your meat industry. You can't include X, Y, and Z all in the same equation and then compare it back to X.

So, these numbers again:
Transportation: 27% of US GHG emissions and 33% of CO2.
Agriculture: 8% of all emissions.
Industry: 30% of all emissions.
Residential and Commercial: 19% and 16% respectively which I assume is based on emissions from electricity consumption and waste.

quote:
Between 1996 and 2003, Chinese meat production rose by 51%


So? You don't think total transportation growth and its respective emissions are going to outpace meat production? Go look at some numbers on how much of the world has a daily diet that includes large amounts of meat, especially beef. Even with all of our fast food, Americans have three times more GHG emissions based on transportation than agriculture.

quote:
Since 1980, CO2 emissions from transportation have increased more rapidly than from any other energy-using
sector. -- Pg. 13


I'd like to point out that this is only for the U.S. and does not include the 2 billion people of India and China, two developing nations that are quickly growing in every sector, especially energy and transportation requirements.


RE: Saving money?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2008 10:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
> "At least in the United States, according to this PEW Center report..."

Your figures are for the US. Mine are for the entire world. Globally, meat production contributes more GHGs than transportation. And, of course, meat production is only part of the entire agricultural sector.

Not, of course, that either figure is anything to be alarmed over.

> "the problem with your math is that you are including transportation costs [as] well as food production"

No. The figures include only production, not transportation of the completed product.


RE: Saving money?
By HsiKai on 8/13/2008 9:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
Also, from your own link, it says that by 2020 "people in developing countries will eat more than 36 kilograms of meat on average" and 76kg in China. That is laughable compared to the United States.

Indeed, global meat production is expected to only grow by 2% each year until 2015 (See: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1495 ). Perhaps "belching, flatulent livestock emit 16 percent of the world's annual production of methane" was what FIT was referring to, but compared to the rest of CO2 emissions, as stated before, that's not much compared to transportation or emissions due to energy, transportation, or feeding those same cows. Seriously, guys, methane is not the only GHG, so get over yourselves, do some research on your articles, and then you can have an opinion. Just make sure you follow your own links.


RE: Saving money?
By mindless1 on 8/13/2008 10:08:02 PM , Rating: 2
There are plenty of developing countries' citizens that eat meat but don't have a car yet. Lots of areas are undeveloped still and people in much of the world don't enjoy the levels of comfort that a few of the Europeans and Americans et al. do.

There is every reason to believe a modern world trends towards motorized gadgets, probably an educated one also chooses to eat less red meat to stay healthier.


RE: Saving money?
By mindless1 on 8/13/2008 10:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
As for the argument that as incomes rise people tend to eat more protein, well even moreso they tend to own their first one, even two or more (and larger) automobiles, boats, lawnmowers, and all those other toys that run off *oil*.


RE: Saving money?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2008 10:56:46 PM , Rating: 2
> "We were talking about oil imports not total consumption"

Your statement was, "more than a fifth of our oil coming directly from the Middle East is still a rather significant number". "Our Oil" implies our total oil usage. Only 1/10 of our total usage is derived from the Middle East.

In any case, the amount the US in particular imports from the Middle East is meaningless. Oil is fungible; what matters is the percentage of global supply derived from the region.

> "Total crude oil imports averaged 9.994 million barrels per day in June..."

You're confusing crude oil imports with petroleum imports. By EIA classification, the latter includes not only crude oil, but all other products, distillate fractions, etc. That's why you see a discrepancy in the figures.


RE: Saving money?
By lco45 on 8/14/2008 1:32:30 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure if I agree or disagree with you, but one thing you have overlooked is that it doesn't matter exactly who the US buys its oil from, because oil is a tradeable commodity.

In other words, if the US buys North Sea oil instead of Middle East oil, then another country which was going to buy North Sea oil has to buy Middle East oil, so there's no difference.

It's oil consumption that's the problem, not where it's purchased.


RE: Saving money?
By BigPeen on 8/13/2008 4:08:24 PM , Rating: 3
First of all, who drives 50k a year in a prius? Second, who only gets 40mpg in a prius? You are an AWFUL driver and person if that's the best you can do. Second of all, youre STILL BUYING GAS (especially if you're driving 50k a year in a commuter car....), so you are still "funding terrorism" and "destroying the planet" according to you.


RE: Saving money?
By walk2k on 8/13/2008 4:22:15 PM , Rating: 1
Way to not read the article. Plugins don't use gas...


RE: Saving money?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2008 4:36:08 PM , Rating: 3
> "Way to not read the article. Plugins don't use gas... "

If you're driving 50K miles a year, you're still using gas, even in a plugin. Even with a conversion kit, after the first 15-40 miles, you either switch to gas or stop and park for the next several hours.


RE: Saving money?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2008 4:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
> "You also aren't funding terrorism [by getting a Prius]" ?

Really? A person who drives a Prius 20K miles/yr is buying far more gas than someone who drives a conventional car 5K miles/yr. Auto mileage is only part of the total consumption equation. The most important factor is how *far* you drive, not what you drive.

And since, even if you ride a bicycle everywhere, you're still using thousands of products produced with or by oil, I think the self-righteous attitude is a little hyprocritical.


RE: Saving money?
By walk2k on 8/13/2008 4:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
A person who drives an all-electric plug in car that uses no gas whatsoever is using more gas than someone driving a gas-powered car.. wow another stellar example of our public education system I see.


RE: Saving money?
By theoflow on 8/13/2008 4:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
I think your missing their point. You still use gas/oil when charging a plug in hybrid, it just comes from the power plant that is providing power for your home. Gas will still power your car, just much more efficiently.

If a plug in hybrid gets 100MPG and drives 20,000 miles a year, they are consuming 200 gallons of gasoline a year.

If a regular car driver gets 30 mpg and drives 5,000 miles a year they are consuming 166 gallons of gasoline a year.


RE: Saving money?
By mindless1 on 8/13/2008 10:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
and yet, if someone were this concerned about using gas and the environmental impact, they'd be one of the ones choosing to drive less not more.

What you drive and how far both matter quite a bit. We haven't even considered yet that all power doesn't necessarily have to come from gas/oil, that if many people started charging their cars we'd need more electricity produced and would tend to look more at alternatives like nuclear power. People used to be scared of nuclear but when they have to open their wallet a little wider or not drive their car, they tend to be more practical about accepting risks, plus we now have many other good examples of safe nuclear reactors in other countries which increase confidence every year they operate w/o incident.


RE: Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/13/2008 5:23:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
wow another stellar example of our public education system I see.
Actually, YOU just demonstrated that "stellar example of our public education system" by not comprehending what you just read. LOL!


RE: Saving money?
By walk2k on 8/13/2008 7:05:41 PM , Rating: 2
No power plant in the world burns gasoline.


RE: Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/13/2008 8:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No power plant in the world burns gasoline.
LMAO!!!


RE: Saving money?
By Solandri on 8/13/2008 10:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No power plant in the world burns gasoline.

The one on board the Prius does, even the "all electric plug-in" variety if you drive further than 40 miles in one shot. The 100 mpg figure given in the article is an average for Priuses with the plug-in conversion. If you assume a pure-gas Prius gets 45 mpg, that means the plug-in type are operating 45% of the time on gasoline.


RE: Saving money?
By Alexstarfire on 8/14/2008 9:22:48 AM , Rating: 2
Since when is a car considered a power plant? To think that all this time I thought it was the internal combustion engine that gave my car power. I'll have to tell the little people managing the power plant in my car to switch to solar and nuclear energy, else they are fired.


RE: Saving money?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2008 10:21:52 AM , Rating: 2
> "Since when is a car considered a power plant? "

Since the laws of thermodynamics were finalized?

In any case, plenty of commercial electric utility plants consume oil, so the point is pretty much moot.


RE: Saving money?
By Solandri on 8/14/2008 2:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
In engineering fields, any device which generates power is called a power plant. The term is more commonly seen in ships and planes, but applies to cars as well. Heck, it even applies to your lawnmower and weed whacker.


RE: Saving money?
By Alexstarfire on 8/14/2008 4:26:13 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I think I'll stick with my ICE acronym, thanks.


RE: Saving money?
By theoflow on 8/14/2008 10:28:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
by walk2k No power plant in the world burns gasoline.


Uhhh....seriously? If you want to get technical then ok, most of power plants in the US run on oil.

Regardless of that fact, when converting the figures with the average cost to recharge a plug in hybrid battery from an outlet compared to prices at the pump. This is how they figure out the MPG rating of 100 and I thought that would be pretty self explanatory. So in actuality, you are using the equivalent of 200 gallons of gas a year in the above example. Seems pretty straightforward to me.


RE: Saving money?
By 16nm on 8/13/2008 3:54:52 PM , Rating: 2
In the beginning, it was not about saving dinero. The reson for buying a hybrid was to save the environment. It was all about being 'green' and feeling warm and fuzzy inside. I guess if the price of gas is going to keep going up like it has been for the last few years AND one is in the market for a new vehicle then a hybrid may make sense and one of the conversion kits might be worth it if gas costs enough.

Personally, I'd wait for the plug-in hybrids that car manufacturers are promising us were I to be in the market for a hybrid. I imagine a plug-in Prius will cost less than today's Prius w/plug-in conversion kit installed.


RE: Saving money?
By BigPeen on 8/13/2008 4:23:25 PM , Rating: 3
It's unfortunate that the LEAD ACID batteries ending up making the car worse for the environment anyways :'(


RE: Saving money?
By walk2k on 8/13/2008 7:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
Completely false. Do you work for Exxon?

Prius batteries are Nickel Metal-Hydride (NiMH) and are 100% recyclable. They are also under warranty for 8-10 years or 100,000 miles (replaced free until then, although ZERO have been replaced yet because they wore out - the only replacements have been for cars involved in accidents) and are designed to last the life of the car, about 180,000 miles.

All of the above are easily available facts found on the internet. You might want to think about getting your information from other than FOX News exclusively.


RE: Saving money?
By Solandri on 8/13/2008 8:05:57 PM , Rating: 2
He's referring to the first plug-in option in the original article:
quote:
There are a few mechanics and car dealers currently installing plug-in hybrid conversions according to News.com, including Plug-In Supply. The company is selling $5,000 conversion kits that allow the Prius driver to travel 20 miles on fully charged lead acid batteries alone . For $11,000, the driver can get a lithium-iron phosphate battery kit in place of the lead acid batteries. The kit prices don't include installation, which can run another $1,000.


RE: Saving money?
By finalfan on 8/13/2008 9:03:18 PM , Rating: 2
Hybrid driver won't notice their batteries are worn off. They will notice their gas bills going up and up over time. All batteries suffer capacity decrease overtime. At least the battery in ipod/iphone will remain 85%-90% of the original capacity after 400 recharges. When the battery in the hybrid has less capacity the gas engine kicks in more often. I doubt how much capacity will be left after 8-10 years or 100,000 miles. I guess it won't be much even after 4-5 years. But that won't affect driving the car just the bill.

It will be a different story for all-electric car. You may not be able to get home if the battery only has 80% of its original capacity.


RE: Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/13/2008 9:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
15 years, 150k miles on the warranty in CA. 10/100k everywhere else. And yes people have had to replace their batteries. A quick look at the Prius forums yields this info.

http://tinyurl.com/596zq6
http://tinyurl.com/5j4r69

Oddly, both people think they are the first to have battery failure.


RE: Saving money?
By kmmatney on 8/13/2008 9:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
although ZERO have been replaced yet because they wore out - the only replacements have been for cars involved in accidents


Where did you pull that comment from? My in-laws have 2 Priuses, and one had to have the netire battery pack replaced after 4.5 years. It was under warrenty, though. I'm sure they are not the only people in the world to ever have the battery replaced becuase they went bad.


RE: Saving money?
By gamerk2 on 8/13/2008 4:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
Toyotas dont break. I've had the same camary since 87, 500,000+ and still kicking. If people take care of their cars, you would never need to buy another one.


RE: Saving money?
By TomZ on 8/13/2008 5:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, that's funny.

Try this experiment: go visit the service department of your local Toyota dealership and tell me if they are busy fixing cars, of if the service department is quiet/empty because they "don't break."

My personal experience is that the Toyota service departments are pretty busy fixing cars. :o)

Toyota has good quality, but not perfect quality. Nobody has perfect quality.


RE: Saving money?
By 16nm on 8/14/2008 1:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My personal experience is that the Toyota service departments are pretty busy fixing cars.


As a one time Toyota owner, I can say they're not busy enough considering how long it takes to fix a vehicle. LOL.

I had to drive a stinking ECHO around for several weeks because they managed to wreck my car while it was being repaired. Apparently, a mechanic accidentally crashed another car in to mine causing great headaches for the service manager. I don't know if that poor service manager had a bad heart or an ulcer, but he didn't look like he was going to make it much longer judging by the way he was clinching his chest explaining what had happened. I took pitty on the poor fellow and told him to relax and call me once everything is worked out.

I don't really like the way Toyota designs its cars, but they are reliable with or without proper care.


RE: Saving money?
By redsquid5 on 8/13/2008 5:04:11 PM , Rating: 2
Lots of folks pay an extra $10000 for a car with a rag top that holds virtually no luggage and only takes two passengers, and the top leaks to boot.
Do we ask if it makes financial sense?
This conversion is for those who feel it worthwhile to either lower gas use - terrorism? end of oil? whatever reason - or believe it lowers impact on the environment.
Right now it does not make financial sense, yes.
I did buy a hybrid Civic, got the full rebate, and that car most certainly makes financial sense with $4.00 gas. Honda plans to sell Hybrids with about a $2000 premium, that makes financial sense.
When the dealer offered to buy my car back for what I paid for it, he can't get enough hybrids, and Honda's sales are making all the other makes look sick, I think we can see the future.


RE: Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/13/2008 5:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lots of folks pay an extra $10000 for a car with a rag top that holds virtually no luggage and only takes two passengers, and the top leaks to boot. Do we ask if it makes financial sense?
I have no problem with modding a car for pleasure but to say you're doing it to save money as the article says is horsesh!t. And that's my point.


RE: Saving money?
By Jim28 on 8/13/2008 7:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
Lots of people like to go into the hole thinking the are saving money, whether with this scam, or buying a 30-50K solar panel system for their house so they can sell power back to the eletric company.

If those purchase are for reasons other than economics, fine. Otherwise like you said it is stupid.


RE: Saving money?
By HsiKai on 8/13/2008 9:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, solar panels, while still very inefficient, pay themselves off in about 10 years for the average home. What makes these difficult for the consumer to swallow is the upfront cost, however if the house is going to stand for more than 10 years after the installation of solar panels, it should be a fairly cost effective solution in places that get the required amount of sun.


RE: Saving money?
By Jim28 on 8/13/2008 10:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and no.
It depends if the solar panels and power storage systems are still operational after 10 years, and at what capacity are they operating. We both know that solar panels and battery performance degraded over time, and will need replacment in 10 years. Also inverter failure is typical after 10 years in high use systems. True an inverter can be repaired, but again at a cost. If you break even in 10 years and have to pay to refurbish the solar panel system , well your argument doesn't hold much water, as the cost difference is a wash. And in any case more return would be realized made be using capital in simple investments.

As a side note, the fact that solar panels are semicon products whose production processes are definitely not "green" or "sustainable" as it depends on loads of ccheap power and a fair amount of manpower, machinery, and materials.


RE: Saving money?
By redsquid5 on 8/13/2008 8:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
Nowhere in the entire article does it even mention saving money. Not once. The title does mention "avoid the PUMP".
Your own bias led you to believe that the only reason someone would do this is money; same as the first Post.
You have a lot to learn about other peoples motivations.

Let me repeat. Its not the money, honey.


RE: Saving money?
By lightfoot on 8/13/2008 9:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
Money in our economy is generally a good way to measure efficiency. If it is more costly in dollars it is usually less efficient in other ways. We use fuel/energy because it is more efficient to have machines do things that humans and other resources would have to do otherwise, but at a higher price.

If the price never reaches break-even it is completely justifiable to ask if these conversion kits ever reach a break-even point in terms of energy usage. Basically does this device over its lifetime help conserve more energy than it cost to manufacture?


RE: Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/13/2008 9:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have a lot to learn about other peoples motivations
YOU have a lot to learn about peoples motivations. Gas prices go up, people buy the crap out of Prius' and other small cars. Do you honestly think that's coincidental? Do you really think that the average Joe is switching to fuel efficient cars to save the planet?

People (regular people not nerds like us) don't dump their one year old diesel pickups because they feel bad. LOL! They do it because they're stupid and they think they'll save money by doing so. People are reacting not thinking.

Need an example? Look at the housing market. The same people that bought a house they couldn't afford, are putting themselves into more debt by dumping their old car that's not paid off and moving that negative equity over to the new car thinking they're saving money. But they aren't.

You guys can go buy all the Prius' you want. That's your choice. You can justify it all you want. But if you bought one and you're not in the market for a new car, or if you dumped your truck/SUV before it was paid off, or if you bought one thinking you'll save money, then you're just like the people that bought houses they couldn't afford.


RE: Saving money?
By tophat on 8/13/2008 7:09:16 PM , Rating: 2
You've all failed to consider the possibility that those who buy these conversion kits may not be doing it for ROI but rather the simple notion of doing something for the environment. How much would that be worth?


RE: Saving money?
By corduroygt on 8/14/2008 2:21:27 AM , Rating: 2
That'd be very few people. I mean why should anyone care for the environment if you don't feel the negative effects (if any) and it doesn't save you money?


RE: Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/14/2008 2:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
not be doing it for ROI but rather the simple notion of doing something for the environment.
But you're not doing it for the environment. LOL! If you think you are, you are deluding yourself. Recycle, recycle, recycle. That goes for cars too. Buying a new anything isn't helping the environment.

You are continuing the process of consumption by buying new. Granted, there's really now way to get away from it completely but you can do your part by REDUCING the amount you consume. This is if you really want to do something about the environment. If this isn't your priority, then by all means, live your life in another manner (free will).

What else are doing to help the environment? Driving around in the latest fad car ain't enough. How's your power consumption at home? Is your home well insulated? What are you using for insulation? How are your windows? What materials are your furniture made from? Is your paint non-toxic?


RE: Saving money?
By lco45 on 8/14/2008 1:38:15 AM , Rating: 2
You don't really save much, if anything, but it's interesting tech, and reduces pollution for the rest of us, so good on 'em I say.


RE: Saving money?
By speedstream5621 on 8/14/2008 8:29:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How does one save money by paying the roughly $5000 premium for a hybrid car then paying another $10k for the LI battery conversion? That does not compute. Considering the car will be dumped in another 5 years, you'll never make up the cost of the vehicle let alone the conversion kit.


Because you are assuming that the true cost of gasoline is whatever you are paying at the pump, but that is not the socially optimal price. At $10/gallon, the conversion kit looks more attractive. Additionally, this is new technology, so we're paying a premium for it.


RE: Saving money?
By Spuke on 8/14/2008 2:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
I already addressed $10 gas. The numbers are still in favor of buying a used car and using the money saved to pay for gas. I also understand this is new tech and costs more but my point was and still is that you're NOT saving money. There's nothing more to my post.


RE: Saving money?
By Hiawa23 on 8/14/2008 11:52:37 AM , Rating: 2
The math doesn't compute with me. How do the Hybrids make sense? You get ripped off paying atleast $4000 more due to high markup from the dealer, then some spend $10k for the kits. No thanks, my 1997 Honda Civic, & Lancer 06 Ralliart will have to do cuase my math aint adding up. I sure hope there is something else that can be done to bring down fuel costs cause for many of us, these Hybrids will not be the answer anytime soon.


By melvin121 on 8/13/2008 5:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see an all electric car, not this hybird crap...and the thing is, its already here. Far from perfect but a very promising start:

http://www.zenncars.com/

The Canadian Government does NOT want this on our Streets (im pretty sure the states are the same) , and why? Perhaps the 37% tax in the cost per liter. Pockets are well lined...

Its funny on a local radio show here in Toronto, they keep calling the transportation office asking for comment, and they dodge calls, and give half ass responses saying that people are not ready for this, yet there are electric scooters available that are street legal. Mind you need to have a bike license to ride it, so only available to those who have one. Lots of people have their regular driving license...

anyway

This is the perfect example of the direction we should head in. And there is still so much room for improvment on these. Solar pannel roofs, synergy breaks, LED headlamps/breaklight/dashboard... And it will be a matter of time when the battery tech will vastly improve.




By TomZ on 8/13/2008 6:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
Well the Zenn is not really a "car" - it's more like a fancy golf cart - since it maxes out a 25 miles/hour. What kind of solution is that?


By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2008 6:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
Not that this changes the validity of your point, but the Zenn is speed-governed to 25 mph. Remove the governor, and the vehicle will go 35 mph. Still a fancy golf cart, to be sure, but possibly practical for some people.


By TomZ on 8/13/2008 6:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
I can go that fast on my bicycle. :o)


By Spuke on 8/13/2008 7:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
$20k for one of these things? Ha! That's dumber than buying a Prius with one those battery conversions and calling it saving money!


By melvin121 on 8/14/2008 1:03:56 AM , Rating: 2
as with any new technology, it always costs more in the begining. Masher said it best, it may fit some people's lifestyle. Just like mopeds / vespa's here in Toronto, they are pretty popular and with good reason as the mileage you get is really good. You live downtown and have a short commute all within the city, why not? But the winters here are brutal, so these fancy golf carts would be your next best bet :) albeit right now a little on the pricey side.

As for the speed issue, this can always be tweeked / changed later. As they build a larger customer base with feedback its not that all hard to see...

The range issue, well if people read my post, I said that this is a great start. By improving the design Im sure that range could be increased. But again this is where lifestyle comes into play. Your not going to chose this vehicle if you have a long ass trip to work.

Mainly its about having options. I think this is a great option depending on what the needs are.


By Spuke on 8/14/2008 2:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Masher said it best, it may fit some people's lifestyle.
THAT, my friend, I don't have a problem with. I don't care if you want to do it for the hell of it. But claiming you're doing it to save money is ridiculous.


Make it for existing cars.
By Mitch101 on 8/13/2008 2:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
I would love to see a company produce a kit that goes into todays existing cars. I might just pay 5-7K to convert my car over to some alternative fuel or electric unit. Im sure there are a few one off mom and pops that do this but I would like to see a major company do this because I would like support 10 years down the line.

Pick the most sold cars that are out there today and offer a conversion kit and sell it through Jegs, autozone, or some other major distributor.

I'm aware because of my cars weight and design this is not 100% practical but not everyone wants a prius. I like my ride and would love to get another 10 years from it with a conversion.

Lets convert some classics to eco friendly vehicles.




RE: Make it for existing cars.
By JNo on 8/13/2008 3:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
Well in Britain you can pay a few £1000 for an LPG (liquified petroleum gas) conversion. It adds a tank where the spare tire was and can switch the engine seemlessly between conventional petrol and LPG. LPG is at ever increasing number of pumps so that's not a prob. With no fuel duty, it's almost half the price of petrol, although you do fewer miles per gallon on it. It starts saving you money on any car, especially a petrol hungry car doing a lot of mileage. Plus it puts you in a lower tax band.

I think it should take around 5 years to get your money back. That might not sound special but remember, it's not *just* about money - people also do it for the environment as LPG produces next to no NOx and sulphur as well as slightly less CO2. The UK government has put limits on how much they can increase the tax on LPG in the future (to help protect your investment) but not by much, so that they can still make more money if it really takes off. Which makes the breakeven economic calculation very difficult. The b4stards!

Google 'LPG conversion' if you're interested.


RE: Make it for existing cars.
By HsiKai on 8/13/2008 3:52:50 PM , Rating: 2
This kit is for cars with batteries and electric drive equipment already. You can't just magic a battery and plug-in kit into any car, it would destroy the weight, balance, and fuel efficiency to add all that. I'll wait for the Volt with it's Lithium-ion battery and ability to drive 40 miles solely on battery power.

As well, won't the addition of the kit void the warranty on the car? I fail to see the cost savings as the battery will likely need to be replaced much sooner while costing so much. In fact you could probably have a lot more fun and maybe save some fuel on the highway with a supercharger.

If you want to convert your car whatever that may be, into an eco-friendly vehicle the best thing to do would be to use leftover cooking oil and such from fast food restaurants. Works great and would be very inexpensive. Also, it doesn't require any conversion, to my knowledge, though I understand that it takes a bit of refining to get all the bad stuff out before you fill up your car with it.


RE: Make it for existing cars.
By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2008 3:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
> "If you want to convert your car whatever that may be, into an eco-friendly vehicle the best thing to do would be to use leftover cooking oil and such from fast food restaurants."

Unless you have a diesel that would be an extraordinarily bad idea.


RE: Make it for existing cars.
By HsiKai on 8/13/2008 5:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
Right, good point, I had forgotten that it was a diesel-only option.


RE: Make it for existing cars.
By Mitch101 on 8/13/2008 4:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
My car takes regular gas unfortunately and its a 98 with around 165,000 miles on it. I take good care of the car but I suspect the trans or engine could go because my car from reading online generally doesn't last this long without some sort of issues. Who knows it could last me another 10 years. It would be cool if the day it does belly up that I could covert it to something else and that someone would make a drop in kit. As of now the only replacement for the engine is pretty much the same regular gas engine.

Since engines usually span several lines of cars why not make an alternative engine for them so if the car is in good relative shape but the engine went one could buy a eco friendly version as a replacement instead of scraping the car or replacing the engine with the same.

Maybe electric isn't the answer for my car but what about a diesel engine with a biodiesel switch? The major car companies want us to buy new cars but there has to be a market for those who want their existing car but maybe want the future under the hood.

Im not an eco nut but I see regular petrol engines of today as being the steam engines of yesterday in 10 years. Were certainly smart enough to get off fossil fueled engines and get to the next level. I just like my ride but cant see putting another gas engine in it when something better is going to be here soon enough even if it runs off my grass clippings.


The new luxury?
By theoflow on 8/13/2008 4:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
Just a thought and I could be way off the mark.

Hybrids are replacing SUV's not necessarily because of energy conservation and/or cost savings, but a new type of car segment that is taking hold in the American car market. In essence, a shiny new toy for consumers can sink their teeth into.

I agree with a bunch of people here that $10k is overkill for a hybrid. After tax and the battery conversion your approaching $40k. It doesn't make any sense financially (for most) and conserving gas is a minuscule part of daily gasoline consumption.

The Honda Clarity is another example of cost not working out favorably for the consumer, but I do LOVE what this car is trying to accomplish.

The car makers are just shifting production from SUV's and trucks to smaller cars. People make their personal choice in whatever car segment is the mainstream and the mainstream for the past decade was SUV's. The mainstream now is compact cars. If this is the case then hybrids are the Escalades' of the compact car market and people will buy them in droves for a combination of reasons, whatever they may be.

BTW, I don't mind the $10k for the upgrade because a private domestic conversation company took American $$ and distributed it to another American worker somewhere; whatever his/her race might be.




RE: The new luxury?
By jabber on 8/14/2008 6:12:44 AM , Rating: 2
After you've paid $30k for the Prius and then the extra $10k for the conversion, paying for a good diesel car with the slight premium over the petrol engine doesnt seem so extreme does it?

Folks really just need to look and think long and hard about what they really need to sustain their lifestyle.

Time to cut out the fat maybe in more ways than one.


RE: The new luxury?
By theoflow on 8/14/2008 10:50:32 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed on the diesel. I've always loved to have an European Spec Accord wagon in diesel cause it would be perfect for my 4+ hour ski trips from NYC to VT. The new Hondas should be seriously interesting.

When the new Ford Mondeo pictures got released I almost creamed my pants. But this is America, and we have very selective concepts of HP vs. Torque. And the whole Diesel's being unreliable and dirty I think this is the biggest generalization ever. My parents used to have an old beatup MB diesel and I can hardly remember how it drove.


RE: The new luxury?
By jabber on 8/14/2008 2:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
I was sold on a diesel the minute I sat behind a BMW 330D at the lights and on the green it launched like a jet on a carrier deck!

My mate has a 530D and its superb, the power just builds and build in a very smooth curve.


RE: The new luxury?
By TomZ on 8/14/2008 4:18:27 PM , Rating: 2
Not available in the United States, AFAIK. But I understand that BMW is planning to launch diesels in the US in the near future...


40 miles on a full charge?
By Cobra Commander on 8/13/2008 2:50:58 PM , Rating: 1
Whoop-dee-doo!!!




RE: 40 miles on a full charge?
By bigbrent88 on 8/13/2008 4:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
40 miles per charge would give me 2 days worth of electric only travel, sounds good. On the topic of buying an old used car, it really is the best option for commuting right now. It's so cheap to buy a early mid 90's 2 door coupe of any kind and get low MPG, insurance rates, and no energy is expended in making a new car. Then you have leftover money for whatever!

I currently drive a '93 BMW 325IS lightly modded with summer tires Im getting 31-33MPG hwy/22 worst city and 200+ hp, all for $4500 plus a new thermostat and valve cover gasket. Plus it's a bimmer! Or you could get a CRX HF and save mucho dinero over a prius in gas and price


RE: 40 miles on a full charge?
By walk2k on 8/13/2008 4:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
It takes 8 hours to charge, so you could theoretically commute 40 miles, charge it at work, and drive it home. I'd wager 40 miles 1-way is more than most people commute.


RE: 40 miles on a full charge?
By Spuke on 8/13/2008 5:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
16 miles one way is average for Americans I think. So your typical person SHOULD be to make it home and back depending on other factors.


RE: 40 miles on a full charge?
By Solandri on 8/14/2008 1:03:48 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, the shorter the commute, the longer the pay-back time. If you're only driving an average of 32 miles/day, at $4/gal gas the pay-back time goes from:
7.1 years (40 miles one-way, 250 workdays/yr; 80 miles per weekend for 50 weeks)

to:
14.2 years (16 miles one-way, 250 workdays/yr; 80 miles per weekend for 50 weeks)

(Incidentally, the second calc works out to 12,000 miles/yr, which is roughly the U.S. average, so it's probably a reasonable estimate for average pay-back time.)


alternative
By ilkhan on 8/13/2008 10:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
Id rather drive a corvette. At least its fun. 20mpg with fun vs 45 mph without fun. Ill willingly pay the extra at the 10k miles a year I drive.




RE: alternative
By Ringold on 8/14/2008 6:03:31 AM , Rating: 3
You're not allowed to have fun! Fun is greed. Kneel before the church of global warming, and repent for your carbon sins!

No, I just took a spin in corvette today, and I agree. Besides, their highway mileage is surprisingly decent.


RE: alternative
By theoflow on 8/14/2008 10:58:46 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah...I think the Vette made top 10 fuel efficient in class in some magazine.

That mostly has to do with the fact that you can go 70 MPH in top gear and only be running at 1750 RPM. I guess that is what 7 liters(?) of displacement gets you. I also have to recommend people catch a episode of Top Gear where the presenter goes from a standing start in 5TH GEAR, going all the way up to 150+ MPH. Sexy indeed.

In comparison, my Civic I need to be at about 2500 RPM to maintain 70mph, and at 80 I'm at or about 3000 RPM.


RE: alternative
By jabber on 8/14/2008 2:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
Great now all they have to do is update its suspension to something more than the current horse drawn wagon setup and you are away!


The Prius
By capper5016 on 8/13/2008 5:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
The conversion kits are WAY overpriced, but the car itself is a great investment. My Wife and I purchased on a year ago to replace our Toyota RAV4, and watched our gas bill drop from $320 a month to less than $70 a month (The car fills the exact same mission, driving the Wife to and from work). Add to that the insurance bonus, and the tax break, and the car has saved us a hell of a lot of money. BTW, in Vegas, we are getting anywhere from 58-63MPG with a 2007 model.

These eco-friendly companies are seriously price gouging people....I looked into a solar electrical system for our home, and was shocked to see it cost $45,000-60,000 for a system that produced 100% of the electricity for the home.....which explains why you see no solar electrical units on homes here in Vegas




RE: The Prius
By theoflow on 8/14/2008 10:42:58 AM , Rating: 2
I'm very glad that your doing your part in helping reduce emission and consumption while at the same time keeping some money in your pocket.

Totally agree that conversion kits are expensive, but as of right now that is how much it costs to do eco-business. The industry is in the fledgling stages, so of coarse things will be ridiculously overpriced. I wouldn't say it is price gouging people because the materials themselves aren't cheap.

There is no investment in an manufacturing infrastructure in eco-business as of yet. But it is coming and the proof is in all the grants going to Universities rushing to develop cheap ways of manufacturing cheaper eco-friendly products as well as making things like solar panels more efficient. Dailytech, on a weekly basis reports on these new breakthroughs but it all takes time, so we have to be patient. Add to that my opinion that America has somewhat forgot how to manufacture goods and even when we do, the price of labor for domestically created goods will never be as cheap as what we can get from industrial giants like China.

I think your location also has a big impact on solar usage. I could be wrong, but doesn't all the dams in the area produce the majority of electricity over there? I live in NYC, and in the Niagara Falls region their electricity bills are stupid cheap. Regardless, I'm glad you even gave solar panels a good look over for yourself rather than get second hand information.


How About Some Facts
By HybridPlugs on 8/14/2008 10:33:31 AM , Rating: 2
I have been driving and building Plug-in cars for over a year. I use it as a commuter vehicle to and from work so I can speak from experience.

1. The best part of a Hybrid is the recapture of braking energy to use for the next time you accelerate.
2. Plug-in cars do cost more to operate than regular Hybrids because you have to factor in the life-cost of the extra Plug-in battery. That is different from the standard Hybrid battery that comes with the car.
3. Using lead-acid batteries that are 98% recyclable and part of one of the best recycling programs the world has ever seen, you can only get about 300 to 400 charge cycles of use. I hold the record for them lasting in a converted Prius and that is 297 cycle before they died. They will cost between $1000.00 and $12,000 to replace.
4. I know of Prius batteries lasting for over 350,000 miles. This is because Toyota’s Prius babies the battery and keeps from ever discharging below 40% or charging above 80% so you don’t have to worry about them.
5. It you are still worried about the battery replacement cost, know this… Like all other cars on the road sometimes the Prius gets into an accident and the battery is salvaged and sold for $500.00. The battery is fine and will last and last.
6. Plug-ins do use gas and that is a good thing. You would not want the gas to sit in the car for a year at a time, turning to jelly.
Also the carbon vapor filter in the gas tank has to purge itself sometime so you want the car to start once in a while.
7. The reason PHEVs are so important is because most people are not willing to give up their gas tank, so this is one way to get most people to drive using DOMESTIC energy instead of using FOREIGN oil.
8. I now build and install PHEV kits for the Prius, Ford Escape, and I am working on building a kit to convert my GMC truck that will can also be used of the Ford F150.
9. Why do it if it cost more. More of my money stays here in the U.S. I don’t want to be part of the gas stations Customer for Life Program. We need Oil but burning it in our cars just to throw it in the air for all of us to breath doesn’t seem like the best use of this precious natural resource.
10. I have been driving my Prius for over a year using Clean Domestic Renewable Wind Energy to offset the amount of Dirty Foreign Oil I have to buy. I am just doing my part for National Security by giving less of my hard earned cash to foreign powers. With our money goes our power, just look at how closely our own government listens to the Oil Industry when they need or want something.
11. No one car will work for everyone every time. For me if my daily commuter does not have a build in video screen that I can hack to play DVD movies and watch live TV while I am waiting for my wife after work, then I don’t want it. The Prius had fold-flat seats that make into a bed that are great for camping or just taking a nap. I don’t drive fast so knowing that my Prius does something just over 107 MPH is plenty fast for me. I often drive at night so if the car is loud, I just don’t want it.
12. Again, a Plug-in car won’t save you money even though you can get over 100 mpg. However, it is good for our country, our air pollution, and our health. I have converted two more cars this month and I have three more lined up to do. It is not cheap but it is the right thing to do.




RE: How About Some Facts
By HybridPlugs on 8/14/2008 10:35:28 AM , Rating: 2
Line 3 should read "They will cost from $1,000 to $1,200 to replace.


$10,000 ?
By TonyB on 8/13/2008 2:53:00 PM , Rating: 3
$10,000, hell for around $3800 you can pickup a used Honda Civic that works and has decent gas mileage.




error
By thornburg on 8/13/2008 2:49:39 PM , Rating: 2
You're short a zero in the subtitle... $10,00 should be $10,000




"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki