backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 36 comment(s) - last by theapparition.. on Nov 13 at 9:25 AM


Click image to enlarge
Market share to rise from just 1.25% in 2005 to at least 6% in 2013

Hybrid vehicles have been a niche market at best since their first introductions in the late 1990s. First developed by Toyota and Honda, the early systems were examined in detail by their competitors and the conclusion was that the added complexity and weight would make the vehicles too expensive for all but wealthy consumers with an interest in preserving the environment.

"Early hybrid vehicles sacrificed space, comfort, and performance for low emissions and high fuel economy," says ABI Research senior analyst David Alexander. "Now a much wider variety of hybrid vehicles is available."

A new ABI Research study, "Consumer Hybrid Vehicles," finds that the market now offers the benefits of a number of different hybrid applications, some of which are still designed for reduced fuel consumption and emissions while others offer enhanced performance or exclusive features such as AC power outlets. This adaptation to a wider market should see consumer hybrids' market share in the United States rise from just 1.25% in 2005 to at least 6% in 2013.

"In the consumer market, education is critical to the uptake of any new technology," says Alexander. "Many vehicle buyers now appear to have learned how hybrid technologies work and are getting interested in benefits other than better mileage. If fuel prices come down, performance becomes more desirable."

Toyota has broadened its hybrid range from the deliberately quirky Prius to include the Highlander SUV, the mainstream Camry, and a couple of Lexus luxury vehicles. Each is tuned to appeal to particular market segments. Honda has dropped its hybrid special vehicle, the Insight, in favor of enhanced versions of the Civic and Accord, both of which lean slightly more toward performance than economy.

GM will be launching its two-mode system next year in its full size SUVs under the tag line "No Compromise." It has already introduced the mild hybrid Saturn Vue Greenline, and the Chevrolet Silverado Hybrid pickup truck that features a built-in 110-V power supply. Ford's Escape was promoted from the start as having V6 performance with four-cylinder economy.

"Manufacturers are starting to tailor hybrid-electric technology to meet the needs of the target audience," concludes Alexander.

In other automotive news Honda has been showcasing its next generation clean diesel and fuel cell motor technologies, India is expected to have hydrogen powered cars soon, Intelligent Design has been showcasing its fuel cell motorcycle, Nissan broke ties with Toyota on hybrid technology development and lastly BMW released its first hydrogen powered vehicle.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Heh...hybrids blow
By archcommus on 11/10/2006 1:13:45 PM , Rating: 2
When they cost at least $5000 more than their non-hybrid counterpart, of course no one's going to want them.

In case you didn't notice, unless you drive like 100,000 miles in five years, you most likely will not save any money with most current hybrids due to their high price tags. I'd rather pay a few more bucks at the pump each week.




RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By GhandiInstinct on 11/10/06, Rating: -1
RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By Lujack on 11/10/2006 1:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
Nice analysis Ghandi.

Which car will be worth more after 100,000 miles--the hybrid or the standard version?

If there's no difference, then it's a 5 year payback. If there is, it's far less.


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By Anh Huynh on 11/10/2006 2:30:46 PM , Rating: 2
The original quote on The Car Connection was 10 years/200,000 miles. Either way after that amount of time the Hybrid would have a lower resale value due to a seven year battery life cycle, and those batteries are not cheap--roughly $7k.


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By Reflex on 11/10/2006 3:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
This is a point I often make, the 'gas savings' are more than gobbled up by the cost of replacement batteries, and those batteries are no friendlier on the environment either. The total environmental impact of a hybrid vehicle tends to be 25-50% higher than a standard gas car of roughly the same size.

These things are statements, not eco-friendly.

I have high hopes for hydraulic hybrids however, that makes a heck of a lot more sense for larger vehicles. Ford has demo'd a Excursion that gets 32mpg city using hydraulics for energy recapture...


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By number999 on 11/10/2006 7:36:36 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
total environmental impact of a hybrid vehicle tends to be 25-50% higher than a standard gas car of roughly the same size
When considering that the burning of gasoline produces 20 pounds of CO2 for every US 1 gallon used (various sites) I find this statement to be dubious, especially when considering the lifetime of the car. Comparing a Prius to a 26 MPG car (and how many cars do that well) over 100000 miles, the difference is 2300 gallons of gasoline which produces 46000 pounds of carbon dioxide, ideally of course.

The battery's most active component would be nickle which is highly valuable, especially in today's markets. Nickle also has the advantage of being more easily recyclable than say aluminum which forms strong bonds with other elements and must be purified using electrolysis (and lots of power). The battery very recyclable due to this fact. There is even an idea that the battery is leased, lowering the cost of the vehicle. Manufacturing/recycling pollution can at least be captured or ameliorated or processes can be used that are less polluting or use less pollution. Driving pollution can't, it goes in everyone's air.

Also, replacement batteries should not be really necessary. Properly engineered, there should be redundancy in the way the packs are connected as well as control circuitry telling which packs are dead. These systems are already used in Li-on systems. Another point is that these batteries are engineered to have mean lifespans in the 8+ years range (10+ in California). Actually the numbers are for minimum warrenty years, which means means lifspan is much greater than the number of warrenty years. It isn't a guarantee but then nothing actually in a car is supposed to last forever.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11812910/

Given the precise numbers quoted, I think it is fair to actually say where you get these figures for the environmental impact. Just saw the Simpson's episode where they go to Florida and visit EPCOT and they ride in the electric car of the future sponsored by the oil industry and lets just say the car isn't a great performer for obvious reasons. Just want to know where you got your numbers.

http://www.greenercars.com/byclass2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Low_Emission_Ve...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03/zaps_ameri...


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By Reflex on 11/11/2006 12:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
I know that 2300 gallons of gasoline sounds like a lot, however when you get into manufacturing plastics and composites(petroleum products) as well as the electronics needed for the second motor on those cars, that deficit is more than made up for quickly. No, I do not have figures handy right now, I only have my own knowledge of thermodynamics, my fiance's knowledge as an environmental scientist, and her father's knowledge as a Chrysler engineer. The fact is that the increased use of plastics, plus the large amount of electronics significantly increases both the oil consumed directly by the product(in the form of structural materials) and the energy burned during manufacture. 2300 gallons is a drop in the bucket, honestly. You are also fairly dismissive of the batteries as an environmental hazard, a position that is quite strange because Li-Ion batteries are terrible environmentally(although not as bad as older ones).

BTW, no offense, but when you demand me to source this stuff and then you support your argument with Wikipedia and Greenercars(the first not an authoritative source, the second not a knowledgeable one) it makes your request seem a bit rediculous. I have learned already that people believe what they want to believe on this topic, regardless of if I bother to exaustively source everything or not. So I will state what I know and you can choose to believe it or not. BTW, I advise an energy committee for the Democratic Party in my state, and its amazing just how little is truly understood about energy deficits(no, they cannot be subsidized away) and thermodynamics in the environmental movement. Thier hearts are in the right place, but they really need a real education on the topic.


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By doctor sam adams on 11/11/2006 2:00:24 AM , Rating: 2
Read the MSNBC article he links:

"“The number of failures has been really, really low,” says American Honda’s Juan Avilla. “We expect them to last the life of the vehicle.”

Toyota tells me that some of the original Prius models now have battery packs that have gone more than 300,000 miles.

BusinessWeek magazine reports that when the U.S. Department of Energy investigated hybrid batteries, it stopped its tests “when the capacity remained almost like new — after 160,000 miles.”

What will it cost to replace the batteries if they fail after the warranty expires? No one seems to know since that hasn’t been an issue yet. Manufacturers say they are trying to find a way to replace the defective cells without removing the entire battery pack. If they're successful, that would dramatically reduce the cost."

Not to mention that battery technology will improve if hybrids take off. Nanocapacitors, etc., or something in the "ten years away" category will likely be successful in improving energy storage technology as demand picks up.

As for sources, Wikipedia may not be as authoritative as a papal bull, but I've never found it to be rampantly untrustworthy, and it's pretty good about labeling articles containing questionable or biased information.


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By Reflex on 11/11/2006 8:20:48 AM , Rating: 3
Even assuming the batteries lived twice as long, it does not make up for the energy deficit or the waste problem(btw, all the extra electronics needed create a lot of chemical waste as well). If you want to increase mileage today, cleanly, without boosting the cost of your vehicle, you can do the same thing for the same price by simply buying a small diesel. A Jetta TDI gets roughly the same real world mileage, costs about the same as a Prius, and has no more manufacturing, electronics or other energy costs beyond any other vehicle.

Other bonuses are that you waste less oil in usage since oil changes are typically about every 12k miles in a diesel, and the engine life is basically unlimited with no toxic batteries needed.

Hybrids are interesting as a concept, but they are not a solution, even assuming you could get past all of the issues mentioned, its still a 2% solution, since it dosen't save all that much gas, and of the amount it saves, passenger cars are a small percentage of the transportation fuel totals, which are themselves less than half of the overall oil usage in this country(over 60% is used for plastics, fertiizer and other petrol products). If it could be done without costing us more energy overall, and without creating more toxic waste(both in the manufacture and eventual disposal), I'd be for it, but currently it cannot.

If people really wanted to make a statement they would do what Europe has been doing and move towards diesels. They run off of more fuel types more easily, are lower maintinence, last longer and are roughly 30% more efficient regardless of your driving pattern. And as of 07, have lower emmisions than most gas cars out there, including hybrids.


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By Zoomer on 11/11/2006 10:48:50 AM , Rating: 2
You can remanufacture 99% of the material of the batteries. The battery being dead is just a slight chemical imbalance. Some tweaks (using expensive eq.) would restore it to working order.


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By number999 on 11/11/2006 3:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
both the oil consumed directly by the product(in the form of structural materials) and the energy burned during manufacture
The eco-type hybrids are usually lighter than normal cars or the same structurally (material-wise). The amount of energy used to manufacture it should be equivalent.

As for the plastics, it all depends on the types of plastic, their use, their feedstocks, and of course recyclability. The SmartCar, a BMW manufactured mini is supposed to be highly recyclable with replacable panels. Recycled, means less oil used.
http://www.thesmart.ca/index.cfm?id=4817
Weirdly enough, some plastic feedstocks can be replaced with ethyl esters, which are basically what bio-diesel is. This is old (40's)tech, though I'm not sure on the type of plastics it can be used for.

Still, 2300 gallons of gas for how much in additional plastic? Especially if the some of the plastic can be recycled. It doesn't quite balance out, I still think that it's worth it. And I took material science.

quote:
overall oil usage in this country

I think this web site says it all -
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/petroleumpr...
As can be seen, transportation swallows 13.6 billion barrels a day compared to 5.1 billion for industrial use in 2004 figures.

I do agree with a move towards diesels. Volkswagon released the TDI Lupo diesel in Europe. It got 75-80 MPG, which is astounding in a commercially produced car but there were pretty bad reviews about the quality and I think it's been removed from the market. I think with the move to low sulfur diesel, these types of cars should be able to enter the NAm the market. The caveate is that the Lupo is probably the limit that you can do with today's conventional ICE/Diesel tech.

If you want to get 100+ MPG, you're going to have to go higher tech, with more work. Steve Lapp, a professor in Ontario, got his Prius to get 100 MPG. His secret, put solar cells to charge the batteries. Excessive, yes, but hey it worked (you can also guess it cost alot). Also NA Prius' are hobbled. In Europe and Asia, there's a buttom to extend the electric mode of the car removed in the NAm market because it affects the battery warranty constraints. People have hacked it.

BTW, no offense back, but my references for example to greencars wasn't actually for arguements but for car milage stats. I hate going through the official gov't site, having to weed through it (again), yuck...(it's as if it's obtuse and obsure for a reason).

As for the Wikipedia, granted its not authoritative but it is reviewed by people on both side of the arguement openly, and for strictly factual information, is mostly correct. It also contains references to other articles and best of all is public and a fairly good place to start. Some of the more scientific journal sites are well, private and need to be specially accessed. They are also trying to get better peer reviews in. I put it in for people to look at for more info and to get a feel for the subject to start.

I really didn't even use it for any arguments. It's just when numbers are used I like to sort of see it, especially when it's not obvious where they are coming from. Even scientists get things wrong, that's what peer review is for -> review.

BTW, thanx for not biting my head off. Some people take critism way too personally on these blogs.

For this article though, what will probably happen is that hybrid tech will be co-opted by the manufacturers for little or no fuel savings while jacking up power and marketing it as green. Manufacturers make more money off the bigger more luxurious models per car than the smaller cars and there is a saturation point in how many cars the market can absorb.
http://www.hybridcenter.org/hybrid-watchdog-whats-...

Articles
100 MPG Car
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/...


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By number999 on 11/12/2006 4:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
Made a mistake
quote:
swallows 13.6 billion barrels a day compared to 5.1 billion for industrial use in 2004 figures
it should say million barrels a day. Jezz, what was I thinking.


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By BillyBatson on 11/11/2006 6:00:27 AM , Rating: 2
$7k? what year did you look up the prices? last i read the batteries int he prius cost $1000 and the batteries in the civic cost $2000. granted these are not cheap prices but no where near $7k, also since they are good for at "least" 8 years, if you buy a hybrid today hopefully in 8 years when you need to replace them the cost to do so will be far less aand the batteries themselves will be smaller and more effecient. Then again that is assuming they still make the model battery your car needs lol


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By mindless1 on 11/11/2006 12:22:37 AM , Rating: 2
The hybrid will be more expensive to maintain and service, and worth less after 100K miles.

There is no payback, except maybe to the conscience of a deluded person, as those buying such a car and actually doing it as more than a mere token gesture will be few and far inbetween. The vast majority won't give up other modern conveniences that pollute or rely on non-renewable resources.

The key is what it's always been, for governments to step in and do everything necessary to cause alternative refuelling stations to appear close enough and frequently enough to be viable. This will be necessary to sell enough volume to drive down alternative product costs and increase the user knowledge base, parts base, service center base, etc.

In other words, it's not about the cars, it's about all those little gotchas we currently take for granted with gasoline powered cars. The current support base for alternative vehicles has to grow before the average consumer will buy one.


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By Milliamp on 11/11/2006 5:43:14 AM , Rating: 2
Why focus on alternitave fuel cars when we still have a fosil fuel based power grids?

Second, you can't compare a 2,000 lb alternitave vehicle to a 3,500 gas powered car and call the technology more efficient.

And, it has been shown that Prius is better at EPA tests than real world driving. Many cars are, but the difference is greater with the Prius.

Personally, I think the gains with Hybrid and alternitave technology are exagerated.

I believe it is easier to make the grid clean becasue it does not have to be mobile.

But fossil fuels are not what it is really about is it? It is about looking down on the rest of the people in the world becasue you get to wear a hybrid sticker.

To many people in the US, that is worth every penny of that extra $10,000 sticker price.


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By doctor sam adams on 11/10/2006 1:48:18 PM , Rating: 2
Uh... so why are they idiots? Because they spent extra money on a feature they wanted? What do you think about people driving Escalades? Ouch, on that scale the Bentley drivers must be subhuman.


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By Ringold on 11/10/2006 1:52:57 PM , Rating: 2
Absolute idiots, huh?

Not everybody drives 5 miles a day where the most fuel-consuming part is burning out after a light turns green.

I nearly bought one myself less than a year ago; I spent about 3 hours in a typical day in extremely heavy traffic. Ended up saving the money though because I got lucky and was able to move to a new place with better access to a toll road that cut my commute to 1.5 hours a day, all highway. If it'd still been predominately grid-lock traffic then I still would've, but hybrids don't do much for highway mileage so that was a deal breaker.

I could also see benefit for those living in mountainous regions (maybe), and any vehicle could benefit from inexpensive 'lite' hybrid systems.

It'd be nice to realize that many people actually do things for a reason, and even those with the money to blow just for the sake of lowering their personal emissions on the road are doing YOU a favor environmentally and indeed all of us by being an early adopter and helping lower the long-terms costs of the technology, through their conspicuous consumption.


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By mindless1 on 11/11/2006 11:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
Don't pretend you're doing anyone a favor by driving 1.5 hours, let alone 3 hours every day. That's just plain irresponsible.


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By doctor sam adams on 11/10/2006 2:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you talk about saving money when the article doesn't even mention that? The hybrid early adopters clearly are motivated by something else. Also, do you ever think about what happens tomorrow, or do you follow the George W. Bush school of gasoline price forecasting? Not to mention, many people do drive 100,000 miles in five years. Finally, the more people buy hybrids, the lower their prices will go, so it seems like you'd rather pay extra at the pump solely for the sake of paying at the pump instead of in your car payment. But watch as hybrid prices go down and gasoline prices go up while you keep paying at the pump for the next five years.


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By montgom on 11/10/2006 4:55:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"do you follow the George W. Bush school of gasoline price forecasting?"


Say what? Mr Clinton gave us two things (well, three, but that is not germane to this discussion).
1) SUVs
2) Cheap gas.

Clinton's legacy of big fuel sucking SUVS and cheap gas have only kept us addicted to the concept of cheap gas and gas guzzling vehicles.
Bob


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By doctor sam adams on 11/10/2006 11:21:48 PM , Rating: 2
I think you missed the point of the discussion. The original poster said it would take five years to pay back the added cost of a hybrid through fuel savings. That calculation is dependent on knowing the cost of fuel.


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By number999 on 11/10/2006 7:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
cost at least $5000 more
Hybrids are usually better built vehicles and have more features.

They also have the benefit of tax credits -
"Starting January 1, 2006, the purchase of hybrid cars qualifies for a tax credit up to $3400 on the purchaser's Federal Income Taxes".
That doesn't include any state incentives as well as other benefits like free city owned parking in San Jose, or use of the HPOV in California for example.

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

And before I hear carping on how the US gov't wastes money for schemes like this, then carp about the $100000 tax credit to businesses for utility vehicles and how that was abused.


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By jconan on 11/11/2006 1:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
in california hybrid vehicles with fuel economy of >45 mpg can apply for hov lane permit. that alone saves time even if you don't drive more than 100k miles. but if you live in a large metropolitan area or city like l.a. in 4 years you could easily rack up 60k miles + because of detours and congested freeways forcing drivers to drive everywhere to avoid bumper to bumper roads...


RE: Heh...hybrids blow
By GaryJohnson on 11/11/2006 1:35:39 PM , Rating: 2
From Honda's website:
A 2007 Civic Sedan costs $15,010 and gets 30 city/40 highway.
A 2007 Civic Hybrid Sedan costs $22,600 and gets 49 city/51 highway.

Price difference is $7,590.
Gas here is currently around ~$2.00/gallon.

The cost per mile is $.050 to $.067 for the conventional, and $.039 to $.041 to for the hybrid. This means it saves you $.011 - $.026 per mile, meaning you would have to drive 291,000 city miles or 690,000 highway miles before the hybrid would start saving you money.

If gas prices soared to ~$5.00/gallon those savings per mile would increase to $.027 - $.065. This results in overall savings starting after 117,000 city miles or 281,000 highway miles.

This of course doesn't take into account vehicle equity or maintenance costs. I also think the hybrid civic might come with more standard features than the normal trim package, which could also help account for it's higher price.

Of course, if you get a Prius instead of a Grand Cherokee, you'll save $3,685 up front, and $.052 to $.085 per mile ($5,200 - $8,500 after 100,000 miles). They both seat 5 (albeit one somewhat more comfortably than the other).


Snail pace
By daftrok on 11/10/2006 3:13:54 PM , Rating: 2
The problem I have with Hybrids is that they just aren't efficient enough. I really wish they would up carbon fiber production. It will be expensive as hell at first, yes, but in the long run cars will becomes over 2x as efficient. But before they can even think about carbon fiber in vehicles is to put it in other transportations, like airplanes, trains, and buses. Yes the airplane engines are made of carbon fiber, but that is just not good enough. It isn't just about the environment, or about global warming. Its about the fact that in a decade or so, fuel will be rising to 8-10 dollars a gallon. And before the mid-21st century, fossil fuels will practically disappear. One has to realize that our fuel supply is not going down with a negative linear regression, it is exponential! And on top of that, we are funding terrorism everytime we go to the pump. It angers me that we clearly have the capabilities to cut down our oil consumption (and our coal consumption to make electricity; buy CFLs people!) and we haven't done it yet. We going to slow and its gonna bite us in the ass sonner than you think.




RE: Snail pace
By doctor sam adams on 11/11/2006 2:25:34 AM , Rating: 2
One of the difficulties with advanced materials like carbon fiber is the "energy-materials paradox." That is a term which refers to the fact that advanced materials (carbon fiber, polysilicon for solar collectors, ceramics for turbines) take a lot more energy to produce than simpler materials such as metals, which means that the energy savings in implementing them are lost in producing them. If carbon fiber were as easy and cheap to make as steel, then no doubt it would be as widespread by now. Cheapness is a matter of monetary cost, but the price differences between various materials (particularly mass-produced ones) are often dependent on the energy costs of producing them.


RE: Snail pace
By daftrok on 11/11/2006 5:33:33 AM , Rating: 2
But see thats the thing. We have to produce more carbon fiber in order to make it cheaper to produce. Sure it costs a lot of energy to make but think about it! How often would you have to replace your air conditioner if its made entirely out of carbon fiber? Imagine air conditioning fans that way less than 1/4 of a steel/aluminum fan, meaning it takes far less energy to create the same effects. How often will you have to change parts of your engine? Its pricy and energy costly now, yes, but it will last you a hellova lot longer than steel or aluminum. And if it costs energy to make it, make energy wind mills out of carbon fiber. That way the cost/benefit ratio will slowly become closer to 1, and in turn save. Is it pricy? Hells yeah. Can we afford it? Hells yeah. I really don't see what else we can do here. Solar power is unreliable in cloudy weather and high maintenance. Ethanol is insanely inefficient and hybrid technology is useless for large cities (in size, and therefore using highways/freeways often).

I see carbon fiber, energy mills, and CFLs as the primary route to take. Just as an example for those CFL doubters out there. My parents' house originally took around 5400W just in lighting. I decided to spend around 100 dollars on CFL light bulbs and change those 40W bulbs you see in bathrooms with 25W bulbs (really, no difference and I did it for those candle shaped bulbs too). It went down to about 1700W (I'm not factoring in the 3700W of heat into the air conditioning use). Granted not all of the lights are on at the same time but the monthly bill went down 30-40 dollars. So in three months, we not only got all of the money spent on CFLs back, but also got essentially brighter bulbs that last much much more longer than incandescent. So imagine if every household in the country did this. Imaging if every university, club, hotels, motels, skyscrapers, casinos, etc. did this. I guarantee you the country would cut down its energy usage by over 15%. And energy wind mills, though expensive, can make a big big difference as well. If it only got a lot more government funding (a meager 200 million dollars a year whereas oil gets in the billions), we can produce enough energy mills to supply nearly 30-40 percent of our country's energy. Frankly, I wouldn't mind spending 100 bucks extra a year in taxes for this to happen, but alas, this remains to be my wish.


RE: Snail pace
By theapparition on 11/13/2006 9:25:23 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with carbon fiber is not your typical ramp up of materials and processes to make more cost efficient. The big problem is manufacturing has to be done by hand. Laying up composites is a manually intensive operation. Until it becomes automated, it will continue to be cost prohibitive.


performance
By Lazarus Dark on 11/10/2006 1:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
while the newest hybrids I understand have "acceptable" performance, I'm a v8 guy. What intrigues me is the idea of adding an electric motor to a full v8. The only thing that would make the price premium worthy to me is if it increases performance over the engine alone; and of course it would still have the benefit that in normal driving the electric motor could take over vastly improving mileage. perhaps even combining this with regenerative braking and shuting off half the cylinders.
and this has the added benefit of the "race on sunday, sell on monday" effect. A high performance hybrid could help sell the family cars.

also, can a hybrid be "souped up" just like a ricer? I know hybrids are more precisely balanced and computer controlled. this could turn some people off, along with the fact that the weekend mechanics might be afraid to pop the hood on a hybrid or afraid of having to pay heavily for a certified hybrid mechanic to work on it.




RE: performance
By number999 on 11/10/2006 8:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
Present Hybrids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hybrid_vehicl...

Upcoming Hybrids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upcoming_Hybrid_vehic...

As you can see on the list, the upcoming vehicles include many SUV's. The shutting down of cylinders is old news and is especially popular in NAm vehicles like the Hemi. Some european makers are using the Hybrid powertrain on sports cars. The Hybrid PT has good torque/RPM characteristics.

As for the souping up, I would be wary of it. The motors are matched to do a certain job within a performance spec. Can you mess around with it? Certainly, but it take a bit of knowledge. Most of the souping up I've seen is with classic cars without all the electronics. How many weekend mechanics actually have the stuff to mess with modern computer controlled cars? Change oil filters, maybe, start messing with the timings and stuff?...Mmm better be my hobby car.


volume ramp
By ADDAvenger on 11/10/2006 8:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just surprised that hybrid hasn't caught on faster




RE: volume ramp
By mindless1 on 11/11/2006 12:23:39 AM , Rating: 2
Why would you be surprised? If that was what was on consumers' minds they wouldn't have bought SUVs to go tooling around town.


Who drives more then 150-250 miles a day?
By BrassMonkey on 11/10/2006 3:39:54 PM , Rating: 2
Patience... the EV movement was stopped in its tracks when the NIMH battery patents were sold to big oil (who have refused to license them to any EV projects.) But now that Li-Ion batteries are becoming a viable EV power source, there are lots of EV projects in development, mostly from Asia. Here is just a sampling:

From China: The Happy Messenger - only costs $10000, goes 150 miles per charge:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/12/chinese_ev...

Also from China: the BYD car, designed to be affordable, with a 250-mile range:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleI...

The GEO EV, from Korea. It goes 155 miles on a three hour charge:
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200505/18/200505182...

Also from Korea. The ENERGINE Electric-Pneumatic hybrid.
It runs on air and electricity. No gasoline:
http://www.energine.com/e_main.php

From Japan. The Subaru R1E. Charges to 90% in 5 minutes, costs under $18000:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8995780

Also from Japan. The Mitsubishi Colt EV. It can charge in 20 minutes, and is priced under $20k.
http://aftermarket.autoblog.com/2006/10/12/mitsubi...

A chinese EV slated for import to the USA next year. It gets 200 miles/charge, and costs $28,500.
http://www.milesautomotive.com/products_xs200.html

The Tesla sports car:
http://www.teslamotors.com




By Xenoid on 11/10/2006 4:15:23 PM , Rating: 1
I would use an electric car but it has to NOT have a 5,000 premium and it has to have at most 15LB/hp ratio. I don't need an engine with a huge displacement, but the power is a requirement. Oh, and it has to be European.

The fact remains that there is no benefit in buying anything non-gasoline. Even a TDI VW has a price premium that can't justify itself. It's cheaper for me fuel a gas car with good mileage for 3 years than to pay the premium for a TDI VW, let alone a hybrid Honda.


Hybrids make you feel "good"
By montgom on 11/10/2006 4:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
Hybrids make no sense unless
1) You live in a congested city with lot's of stop and go traffic
2) You need to feel good and do something for the environment.

A non-hybrid is a much better deal in 100K miles.
Bob
PS Can you imagine fixing a hybrid system after a 100K $$$$$$$$.




Wow...such hate. ;)
By rtrski on 11/11/2006 2:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of posters are mixing up the PZEV (partial-zero emission vehicle, yes I know that's a bit of an oxymoron) featurs with the economy features.

First, in terms of emissions, even a huge v8 could be made 'low emissions' with appropriate catalytic cracking, etc. But doing so generally costs efficiency. Regardless, the Prius for example has among the absolute lowest emissions other than pure C02 and water vapor of any vehicle. So for those willing to pay a bit of a premium to have a personal hand in reducing gas emissions, that's a plus.

Regarding efficiency: here's my personal situation. I drive 55 miles EACH WAY to work, mostly highway. Texas highway speeds are such that I'm usually driving upward of 60 mph. As a result I'm not doing as well as I could be, and only getting 50 mpg on average. I've put more than 28,0000 miles on the car in a year. Call gas a flat $2.10/gallon (its been much higher, but also much lower). Contrast what I paid for gas (2.1x(28000/50)) = $1176 with what I'd pay getting 30mpg (2.1x(28000/30)) = $1960. So in 1 year I've already saved almost $800. Oh, and the car is also very low maintenance: the only thing you do on it is rotate tires and change oil every 5k miles, vs 3k for many other cars. Brakes will last longer due to using electromagnetic motion capture. Batteries are rated at over 100k miles or 7 years per the manual (which is what they feel 'safe' guaranteeing, so actual performance is probably likely to be at least that good if not better). Acceleration is actually fine even when dealing with insane TX pickup/SUV/tank drivers...low-end torque from electric motors can be extreme, and the car's acceleration from 0-40 is quite sporty, getting you in the flow before the more relaxed 40-60 acceleration curve tail kicks in. In stop-and-go traffic when the highway does back up I can run the AC and creep along without using the gas engine at all...my MPG situation improves in those cases. (When Houston evacuated because of the hurricanes, a slew of regular drivers found themselves overheated at the side of the road or unable to run AC. Not the hybrids...)

Even if I paid $5k more for the car up front (which frankly, comparing the features of the Prius with an 'equivalent' non-hybrid small sedan of equivalent comfort and trim, I'd tend to disagree with), at the worst in 6 years, before I need to replace the batteries (which are only about a grand, not the insane amounts others have quoted, and probably won't be that much 4 years from now) I will *gasp* BREAK EVEN compared to a 'regular' car. And that's assuming gas stays at about $2.10/gallon for the next FOUR YEARS. Anyone wanna take that bet? I don't. The picture only gets better as gas goes up.

But wait...there's more!! I got a $2k tax credit for buying the car. Gee, looks like I'm actually coming out ahead after all, and feeling good about what I bought! Remember all those emissions I wasn't contributing?

Hybrids are hardly the end-all, be-all of friendly transport. (I drive only 13 miles each way to take the public light rail system a lot too...do the math, at 110 miles/work day x about 250 work days a year, the only way I'd have as LITTLE as 28k miles in a year is if I never drove anywhere else.) But spreading a lot of flak about how they're effectively more costly than a 'normal' car is just a bunch of hatemongering hoopla.




"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

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