backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 71 comment(s) - last by exdeath.. on Feb 9 at 12:16 PM

2008 Toyota Highlander Hybrid - images courtesy Toyota Motor Company
Toyota revamps its Highlander Hybrid, carries over the powertrain

Toyota continues its push for hybrid vehicles with the new 2008 Highlander Hybrid. The new Highlander Hybrid and is based on the new Toyota Camry/Avalon chassis and rides on a wheelbase that is 3" longer. The vehicle is also 3" wider and 4" longer than the previous Highlander Hybrid.

Sadly, the powertrain for the 2008 Highlander Hybrid is a carryover from the previous model. In this case, the old 3.3 liter V6 (which itself is an outgrowth of the even older 3.0 liter corporate V6) and continuously variable transmission (CVT) is still being used to carry the majority of the load on the vehicle. There was speculation that the new 3.5 liter V6 would also be paired with the Synergy hybrid system used on the 2008 Highlander hybrid, but keeping the price down on the model was probably the reasoning for the carryover.

That being said, the Highlander retains its EPA rating of 31MPG/27MPG city/highway despite picking up an additional 500 pounds of heft. The 2008 Highlander Hybrid also offers the option to shut off the gasoline engine completely and run solely on battery power according to AutoblogGreen. The only problem is that the Highlander Hybrid’s NiMH batteries mean that you’ll only be able to travel an astonishing one mile on battery power alone.

GM’s 2009 Saturn Vue Green Line promises to deliver as much as 10 miles of battery-only power thanks to its lithium-ion batteries.

Pricing has not yet been announced for the new 2008 Highlander Hybrid, but expect modest price increases over the 2007 model. The 2007 model retails between $32,490 for a FWD Highlander Hybrid Base to $36,550 for an AWD Highlander Hybrid Limited.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
ignorance
By TheWizardofOz on 2/7/2007 4:48:40 PM , Rating: 1
People have to start realizing that hybrid vehicles and economy/environmental vehicles are not the same...

There are "green" cars such as Honda Civic Hybrid, Toyota Prius, which are intended to achieve high mpg results, and they get yellow stickers to cruise in the carpool lane with only 1 person/car. These cars are intended to be efficient and low fuel consuming.

Hybrid technology also allows high performance oriented vehicles to be build with smaller engines. Instead of gas guzzling V8s, small sized V6 engines can be coupled with electric motors, to achieve the performance of a V8 car in that car's class. Toyota Highlander, Lexus GS450h, Lexus LS 600h and Lexus RX400h are such examples...

Now stop critisizing these cars' fuel consumptions because that is pure ignorance. Think, before you post. Compare those cars' fuel consumptions to their V8 counterparts and then see how good they really are.




RE: ignorance
By Groovester on 2/7/2007 5:49:50 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Now stop critisizing these cars' fuel consumptions because that is pure ignorance.


Why not compare any hybrid's fuel comsumption to a Hummvee? Or a Sherman tank?

With the advent of recent battery technology (using nanotube technology), the internal combustion engine is (or read "should") clearly going the way of the horse and buggy.

Please follow this hyperlink to find out why:
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/index.html

Yes, the price of these electric vehicles seem prohibitive, but the cost should come way down (these are essentially hand-assembled in Ontario, CA) if mass-produced.

If you can find an internal combustion engine propelled vehicle that can go more than a hundred miles using about $3 worth of energy, then I'll stop posting. Otherwise, consider how much a gallon of fuel will be when a couple billion more Chinese move up to the middle class and can afford a polluting, oil-fuelled car. I doubt whether you'll be nearly as concerned about any gas-guzzler's styling then.

Our ability to be more energy-independent, not to mention salutory air pollution and global warming effects, should outweigh any such nitpicking about supposed horsepower or MPG issues. Perhaps we do indeed need to "think before we post" but we also just need to think.


RE: ignorance
By TheWizardofOz on 2/7/2007 7:08:28 PM , Rating: 1
You did not read what I've written, and you've quoted my comment partially, which resulted as a misunderstanding of my point.

I said, there are hybrid engined cars, but not all are meant to be fuel efficient.

a Hybrid Lexus GS 450h consumes about 30-40 percent less than it's counterpart, the Lexus GS 430. Their PERFORMANCE is about the same. 450h uses a V6 and an electric engine, where 430 uses a V8.

My point is nowhere near what you've written. I never said they are good because their fuel consumption is acceptable. I said they consume considerably less than their counterparts, which are the V8s.

You can build a Hummer with a V6 and an electric engine that could get about 20mpg. With the SAME PERFORMANCE as the V8 . (which is actually 10mpg). Is this not good? If a person no matter why prefers to buy an Hummer, goes and gets the hybrid, he will go 10 more miles with the same amount of fuel, which is also a way to save fuel.

Besides everything, I also agree that US has to realize that fossil fuel is not going to last forever, and it's not causing global warming. in EU, 50% or more of the cars have diesel engines, and it's proven that modern diesels burn fuel just as clean as their gasoline counterparts, if not cleaner.

Now how many people in US would buy a diesel engined brand new car?


RE: ignorance
By jak3676 on 2/8/2007 1:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now how many people in US would buy a diesel engined brand new car?

Check out the VW Jetta TDI (diesel). I picked up a 2005.5 EPA MPG numbers don't do it justice. I believe its listed at around 35/40 City/HWY but if you have a long commute (where the engine actually has a chance to warm up) you can get well over 40/50+ MPG, I've even averaged over 60+ MPG when doing cross country drives. Yeah, 1 guys numbers don't mean anything, but check out TDIclub.com. You'll see we are all reporting similar numbers. Not only is the MPG great, but it's actually a great car.

Future diesel tech looks very promising. There's some Euro models out there getting 70+ MPG. Hopefully the "old diesel chatterbox" myth will die in the US soon and we can begin importing some of these things.

One of the best parts is the ease of using bio-diesel. Most bio-diesel production is more energy efficient than ethanol production. Generally bio-diesel helps reduce the only down side of diesel cars - the NOX production. Because EPA rules are similar for all cars, diesels in the US have to fall under regular unleaded rules. So even though we produce much less CO2 and some other byproducts, we still get classified as only a "low emission vehicle (LEV)". They are changing some rules for 2007, so we'll see what happens.

Don't get me wrong, it still has lots of room for improvment. Bio-diesel use is way too low. As soon as we can merge clean diesel production to a hybrid drive we'll get the best of both worlds.


RE: ignorance
By geeg on 2/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: ignorance
By timmiser on 2/8/2007 5:15:19 AM , Rating: 2
8V? Never heard of that. Does that mean it has 8 crankshafts and drivetrains to 8 different wheels? Interesting.


RE: ignorance
By miekedmr on 2/8/2007 2:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
No, no, I think he means 8 valves. A 4-cylinder with 2 valves per cylinder.
I agree though, in the age of direct injection, variable valve timing, etc, having an outdated 8-valve four cylinder in a car is criminal.


RE: ignorance
By masher2 (blog) on 2/8/2007 8:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
> "driving an 8V engined car is a crime in the first place..."

That's an interesting viewpoint. Care to explain how you reached it?


RE: ignorance
By Rugar on 2/8/2007 9:23:03 AM , Rating: 3
It's an interesting side effect of the internet that it makes your speech centers engage long before your logical reasoning does. :-P


RE: ignorance
By Kuroyama on 2/8/2007 5:50:16 PM , Rating: 2
His comment was obvious hyperbole. As in "it is criminal In any case, I think oral speech results in people speaking before thinking more often than does the internet; only on the internet people are less likely to keep their mouth shut when they want to say something. For instance, I think if Biden had been writing online then he would have chosen his words more carefully when making his now infamous remarks about Obama.


RE: ignorance
By Kuroyama on 2/8/2007 5:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, sentence got cut off there. Fill in your favorite "It's criminal to ...." phrase and you'll get my point.


RE: ignorance
By Grast on 2/8/07, Rating: 0
RE: ignorance
By miekedmr on 2/8/2007 3:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
Don't say "you liberals" ever again, please. All it does is make you look like an idiot.

I consider myself very liberal, but I don't think big engines are evil. In fact, a big vehicle carrying a big payload is generally more efficient than seperating the load into smaller vehicles or making multiple trips. When gas-guzzling trucks are used for their intended purpose, that's perfectly fine.
On the other hand, people that drive 6000lb SUVs all over the place by themselves get absolutely no respect from me.

Another example... Someone spends a silly amount of money on a sports car that doesn't do very good with gas mileage. If they keep it garaged 95% of the time when its not at a car show or a drag strip, that's fine by me. It may be a guilty pleasure, but at least they're being reasonable. If they drive it every day, with complete disregard for energy conservation, then they get no respect.

Everyone should at least be able to make some sacrifices where it suits them. Apathy from well-to-do people only because of the financial insignificance of their wastefullness is the problem.


RE: ignorance
By masher2 (blog) on 2/8/2007 4:33:33 PM , Rating: 1
> "Don't say "you liberals" ever again...people that drive 6000lb SUVs all over the place by themselves get absolutely no respect from me....if someone [drives their sports car every day] they get no respect...

I think you proved the original poster's point. You're condemning people based on their choice of vehicle and driving habits. That's the attitude he was speaking out against.

> "Everyone should at least be able to make sacrifices..."

Why?



RE: ignorance
By rsubasic on 2/8/2007 9:40:48 PM , Rating: 2
I quite enjoy my criminal status driving my gas guzzling BMW M5. Lots and lots of filthy, wasteful, neck-snapping, super-exciting power. Ahhhh...


RE: ignorance
By ElFenix on 2/7/2007 8:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
the layout of the engine has very little to do with fuel consumption. V8s don't necessarily guzzle gas, and V6s don't necessarily improve consumption. usually a V8 is tuned for more performance and in a heavier car than a V6. those factors are more important than the layout of the engine.


RE: ignorance
By DocDraken on 2/8/2007 10:54:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the layout of the engine has very little to do with fuel consumption.


Actually the most important aspect of fuel consumption is internal friction in the engine. A V8 has more internal friction than a 4 cylinder.

So for example if you have a 300 HP 4 cylinder turbo engine and a 300 HP naturally aspirated V8, the V8 will have poorer total fuel mileage, even though it's got the same amount of power.

The car mentioned in the article above is rediculous, since you can get a turbocharged 4-cylinder stationcar that's pretty much just as fast and has similar space and just as low fuel consumption without having expensive and heavy batteries. Unfortunately people think they need a big V6 or V8 even though you can get the same power with a 4 cylinder and have better mileage too.


RE: ignorance
By masher2 (blog) on 2/8/2007 1:21:49 PM , Rating: 1
> "Actually the most important aspect of fuel consumption is internal friction in the engine..."

No, the most important factor by far is simple Carnot losses inherent in any heat engine. In second place is rolling resistance, including frictional losses from wheel to road, and those from air resistance.

Internal friction within the engine is quite low...which one can see from noticing that an engine at idle uses nearly no gasoline, yet is able to overcome that internal friction to keep moving.

> "The car mentioned in the article above is rediculous, since you can get a turbocharged 4-cylinder stationcar that's pretty much just as fast..."

You forgot a little thing called torque. A turbocharged 4-cylinder may have equal horsepower, but its still going to have far less torque.



RE: ignorance
By miekedmr on 2/8/2007 3:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
Not arguing really, I just want to clarify, because people don't seem to understand the relationship between horsepower and torque.

Horsepower = torque * RPM

A V8 would tend to have lots of torque at a low rpm, giving it a high PEAK torque rating relative to its PEAK horsepower. A turbo 4 cylinder that makes all its torque at a high rpm would have a high peak horsepower relative to its peak torque, because HP is a function of rpm too.

Here's the misconception: a turbo 4 cylinder might make the same 250ft-lb of peak torque at 6000rpm as a v8 at 3000rpm, but because of the peaky no-low-end torque curve, it gets labelled as having "no torque", when it really has plenty. It's just at a high rpm. Torque is not a measurement of output at low rpm...


RE: ignorance