94mpg Prius?
 

If Toyota pulls this off, I might have to seriously consider a Prius.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/...offer-113-mpg/

They're just now switching to Li-ion batteries?

Large Li-ion batteries have not been available. Max cell size has been about 3/4" round by 2" long for notebooks, etc... Did you see the Monster Garage where they used 400 some odd cordless tool batteries to make an electric drag car.

Toyota probably used 200 that are twice as big. :p

And yeah, 94 mpg... that car would practically pay for itself for anybody not already driving a 4 cylinder economy car.

Gleaned this from another forum...

Title: The Truth About Hybrids

By Bob Elton


Hybrids like the new Ford Escape are making quite a splash, both in the sales charts and the media. But do they really deserve all the love and attention?

The Toyota Prius, Honda Accord hybrid and Ford Escape hybrid are a major hit. The buff books rave about them, the Greens bless them and retail customers can’t get enough (literally). While the mileage, environmental and PC advantages of vehicles powered by a gas - electric powerplant seems obvious, how much of this hybrid mania is hype?

Buyers pay a large premium for a hybrid Escape or a Prius, presuming that the increased fuel mileage makes them a better environmental citizen. While there’s no question that the Toyota, Honda and Ford hybrids are more fuel efficient than their conventionally powered equivalents, the difference is nowhere near as great as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) numbers suggest.

The Prius' Synergy Drive looks clean and tidy now, but those big old batteries will eventually pose an environmental risk

Because of the low speeds involved, the city portion of the EPA’s test is accomplished in battery-only mode. As the gasoline engine is off-line for a significant part of the test, the eventual mileage figure is grossly inflated. The test fails to consider the fuel needed to recharge the batteries later on. What’s more, all energy-draining, electrically-powered accessories (including AC) are switched off during both the urban and highway tests. These variables contribute to the huge discrepancy between the EPA’s official numbers and hybrid owners’ real world experience.

Few people realize that a hybrid’s power train adds roughly 10% to the weight of a car. Even fewer realize that manufacturers try to offset the weight penalty-- and add to the hybrid’s headline-grabbing mileage figures-- by the extensive use of non-hybrid gas-saving technology. Engine shut-off at idle, electric power steering, harder and reduced rolling resistance tires (at the expense of comfort and traction), reduced option content, reduced engine performance, and, in the case of the Ford, a continuously variable transmission (CVT) all help raise the cars’ overall efficiency.

Of course, if gas mileage is the ultimate goal, all of these strategies could be applied to a “standard” car. A non-hybrid model with the equivalent modifications would significantly narrow the mileage gap with its hybrid sibling. In fact, in normal use, the margin between truly comparable hybrid and non-hybrid cars could be less than 10%-- hardly enough to justify the extra purchase price. And, lest we forget, the hybrid’s gas-saving advantage is not without its own particular environmental costs…

Gas - electric hybrid engines use several large batteries. Creating these power cells requires a couple of hundred pounds of heavy metals-- not to mention the copper used in the large electric drive motors and the heavy wires they require. Mining and smelting lead, copper and other heavy metals is an energy intensive process that generates both air pollution and deforestation. Disposing of the batteries when they outlive their usefulness also raises environmental challenges.
icon

And then there are the safety problems related to the gas - electric hybrid engine’s high voltages and amperages. While Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) regulate a passenger vehicle’s basic crash protection, there are no federally mandated procedures remain for the protection of rescue workers at the site of an accident involving a hybrid-powered vehicle. Service technicians and do-it-yourself owners also lack the guidelines, education and training necessary to safely repair hybrid engines.

So, if the hybrid’s mileage advantage is minimal, and the technology has its own set of negative environmental side effects, why is hybrid technology so popular, both in the marketplace and in the glossy pages of the car mags?


Americans are fond of turning to simple silver bullets to solve complicated problems. The hybrid solution seems ideal. Want to be environmentally responsible? Buy a hybrid. A hybrid car offers instant gratification, PC-style. It relieves consumers of both guilt and personal responsibility for the broader impact of their daily energy consumption habits. Heaven forbid that a hybrid owner should switch off their central air, or buy less disposable products, or use their car less, to help protect the environment.

Hybrid technology embodies America’s "solution of the day" syndrome. A quarter of a century ago, the diesel-powered car was going to free us from dependence on imported oil. A while later, the turbocharger was set to improve the efficiency of the internal combustion engine and liberate us from foreign oil addiction. About a decade ago, the California Air Resources Board thought that battery-powered electric cars were the answer, cleaning the air as they saved the world’s petrochemical resources.

The problem with the "solution of the day" is that few of these “easy” solutions actually work. Automotive history is littered with failed miracles, from the kerosene-driven Stanley Steamer to the rotary-powered Skycar. Time has proven that the only innovations that persevere in the marketplace are the ones that deliver real benefits. No amount of hype can obscure, for long, the lack of results. When boosters call hybrid technology an “interim” solution to our energy needs, they’re more right than they even know.


Bob Elton

Bob Elton is an automotive engineer who, over the last 30 years, has worked for all of the big 3 and a number of suppliers as well. Elton holds a couple of dozen patents, and currently works as a consultant to a major automotive supplier. In addition to an engineering background, he has a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree and has worked inside styling studios at Ford, GM and Navistar. Elton has been an occasional contributor to Old Cars Weekly and has contributed regularly to numerous car club publications. He is currently teaching a class in the automotive restoration program at Washtenaw Community College.
Email: bobelton@thetruthaboutcars.com

It's gonna be a blast getting stuck behind these things at traffic lights. :|

It's not surprising what-so-ever to see this type of attitude from a big 3 engineer. This type of thinking is exactly what is keeping them uncompetetive. Having met many engineers from big 3, I can confidently say they are not the cream of the crop. Everyone I've known who was a reasonably intelligent person who worked for them quit because they hated the work enviroment. I've heard countless stories from my friends about the same. Among my peers working for GM in particular is literally a joke.

What many American companies seem to fail to realized is that technology needs to be brought to market in a young stage before it can be justified to develop more fully and see it's real potential. Most of what he says is true, but also irrelavant. Current hybrids do in fact get significantly better mileage than gas cars, I rented a Prius for a week and I got over 40 mpg in it and I assure you I don't drive like an old lady. Is that the 55 mpg that the EPA says it gets? no. Is it significantly better than any non-hybrid could possibly do? absolutely. So maybe the next Prius will only get 70 mpg instead of 94. By the time the next generation one comes out, they will probably be pushing a realistic 100 mpg. What will GM have? A Tahoe that gets 18 mpg and a bunch of consumers paying $3.20 a gallon for gas.

The decontented stuff he says is a bunch of bullshit. That might have been true when they first came out, but not now. Anyone seen the new Lexus L600h? That car has a stretched wheelbase, every option under the sun, and 19 inch rims. They also say it will be the quiestest luxury car around because the motor won't always be on. You can also get a Prius with leather, navigation, HIDs, stability control, whatever.

Also a GM guy talking about Toyota creating waste is hilarious. I have no doubt that they have the cleanest plants of any automotive manufacturer and I assure you they have the best manufacturing process. As for battery disposal, Li batteries are non-toxic and all batteries can be recycled. It's not a like a car is going to be thrown in a trash can and forgotten about. I'm sure a decent industry will develop around recycling hybrid batteries once they starting older.

http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-20.htm

^^^ Lots of good points.

I pretty much agree with JC. Bob-o there has some true technical points, but it's naysayers like him (combined with beancounters) that have stifled any real technological advances in the domestic auto industry. If you just sit on your hands and whine about all the technical hurdles & cost standing in the way of accomplishing something new, you'll just stagnate at the same level forever while somebody else invests the development effort and gets it done. Which is one of the reasons why Detroit iron companies are facing bankruptcy & closing factories while most foreign manufacturers seem to be doing just fine.

The reality is that as gas prices creep steadily higher and higher, the marketplace will drive the development of more and more alternatives to the typical low-mileage detroit car. Someone will get out in front of that and make a lot of money, and right now it looks like Toyota is putting in the effort to have it be them...

Traditional Li-ion batterys would be horrible due to the limited number of charges. Cars would last maybe a year before needing to replace the batteries. The reason the switch took so long is due to the fact that Fuji Heavy Industries and NEC have a joint patent on new Li-ion batteries with Manganese (I think) that don't have the same charging limitation, and Toyota legally was in a bind. So, they bought 8.7% of FHI a few months back, and agreed to a partnership and all that jazz, and now they have the good battery technology they wanted.

I didn't know Li-ion batteries had less charges than Nickel Hydrate (sp?)

Nickel Metal Hydride doesn't have a limited number of charges, they just decrease in effeciency over time, depending on how much you charge it each time.

Li-ion on the other hand, has a set number of charges in its lifecycle (lets say 1000 for discussion) so, if the battery is drained 10% and you recharge it you lose one of your 1000 charges. NiMH would lose very little in that case, maybe equivalent of 10% of 'one charge.' I'm not a battery expert, just recalling a conversation I had with a business partner who used to do battery research, and drives a hybrid Accord.

Hybrids are constantly recharging with braking and excess engine power, so they would eat through those recharges quickly and the battery would become very expensive paperweights very fast.

But, then again NiMH can't supply power as well as Li-ion can, which means you need a lot of batteries. With the switch to these new Li-ion batteries, they really only need the physical space of about 60% of current implementations (roughly, I think) or just cram the more efficient batteries into the same footprint and make out like bandits on the mileage.

Interesting.

NiMh is still probably the lightest per unit energy system, and it is not an environmental nightmare, but it can't produce the juice as it were. NiMh just doesn't have the ability to supply sufficient current for motor type applications. That's why high drain RC cars and power tools etc. still rely on NiCd, but for portable electronics, NiMh work great because they can deliver a reasonable current for a hell of a long time relatively speaking. The typically destroy carbon, alkiline, and NiCds by as much as a factor of 5 or more in low-medium current applications.

Li-ion on the other hand handles high current as did NiCd and Lead Acid, but Nick is right, their lifecycle sucked compared to the other technologies.

And we still have the big challenge... Supply and demand... Everyone is making small cells for notebooks etc. There is no monster market to do the R&D required to make car battery size cells, and since there are no car battery sized cells, all the industries that might use them don't. Somebody like toyota, and FHI can drive that supply/demand model from both ends and hopefully make progress on larger cells.

Wow Dean, after the thread about alternative fuel/water cycle motors, I'm surprised you're advocating the development of new battery tech. After all, I thought if it wasn't an immediate, complete solution to the problem, why work on it at all, right? :P

Touche :P

It's spelled with a "D", not a "T"

No, No it isn't...

And I forgot to mention the charging problems. Relatively speaking, charging PbH2SO4, NiMh, and NiCd are childs play compared to Li-ion. You basically have to charge/monitor every Li-ion cell independently, or risk severly damaging them, or worse. I am assuming they have made that cheap enough, or less of an issue with the new Li-ion.

That sort of influence (and the oil lobby) for the last 35+ years is the reason we're not all driving electric right now.

Nope. Pure electric cars will never be much of the market, because that is, for lack of a better term, "non-renewable" energy. Hybrids truly use less energy to get from place to place because they turn chemical PE into KE, then recover some of the KE and reconvert it to PE. Lather rinse repeat, you get increased fuel economy. Trying to meet the energy demands of our transportation usage would utterly paralize our already stressed electricity production infrastructure. Thank the very environmental lobbyists who hate on IC engines for not enabling us to fix that.

FTW? The same technology that charges batteries in hybrids can charge batteries in electric vehicles.

As previously said in the water engine thread, the only true renewable resource is sunlight, and it is a far sight easier to turn that into electricity than it is to turn it into oil. Whether you use the electricity to break water apart for fuel cells, or IC, or use it to power electric motors, who cares.

The only thing holding back electric vehicles besides the oil lobbies has been battery technology.

So...

PE in the form of gasoline in the fuel tank, converted to PE in the form of a charged chemical battery (at a loss), converted to KE (at a loss), partially recovered to PE in the battery

is somehow significantly different from

PE in the form of gasoline/natural gas/nuclear fuel at the power station, converted to PE in the form of a charged chemical battery (at a loss), converted to KE (at a loss), partially recovered to PE in the battery?

Looks like the same damn thing to me, except electric cars don't have to carry the power station around with them everywhere they go. It's not like regenerative braking can't be used on pure electric cars. Hybrids are basically electric cars that can run on the existing gasoline infrastructure, at a loss in effeciency due to less effective fuel to battery power conversion as well as the added weight of the combustion motor.

The sun is not a renewable resource. Read Issac Asimov's "The Last Question". Entropy is a bitch.

Not quite. You can partially charge a full-electric car usign regenerative braking, but when those batteries get low/empty how do you keep going up a hill so you can recharge coming down the other side? Unless/until battery technology gets to the point that you can fully recharge your car's system in the time it takes to, say, finish your grocery shopping, it'll lose out to mproved hybrid technology. 125 mile cruising range FTL.

Americans won't forego the "convenience" of 15mpg SUVs, and you expect them to convert to cars that take ~8 hours to fill up the "gas tank?" Not gonna happen. Unless incredible leaps of technology are made, purely electric vehicles will never see major use as household transportation, only specialty functions like meter maid carts and maybe certain parts of public transit.

Boy that's a stretch.

Let's do this: one hybrid car w/ next generation battery technology vs. one pure electric w/ next generation battery technology.

Assume both cars are exactly the same in weight, performance, etc. One just has a small gas motor and fuel tank, the other has the weight of the motor/fuel in extra batteries.

Because the pure electric is charged by a power plant that's way more efficient than the hybrid's motor, when fully charged, it already has made more efficient use of the original chemical energy. Coupled with the larger overall battery capacity, now the pure electric drives over your stratigically placed hill and on for another 40 miles while the hybrid runs out of gas climbing the hill.

The next generation Li-ion batteries for cell phones can charge to 90% in 30 seconds, IIRC. Charging a car completely in <20 minutes isn't an outlandish proposal, and in 10 years there's no reason why we couldn't theoretically have cars that charge +20% just by driving under a "power bar" that spans the road.

I've posted this before... http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pa..._html_home.htm

Get rid of teh PbH2SO4 batteries and replace with Li-ion technology that has twice or more capacity for the same weight...

I'd buy one... And did I mention it recharges in about an hour... Hmm. sounds like enough time to go grocery shopping...

And this car has been around for 5+ years I think. Imagine what could be done with modern composites...

If that's the case, then there's hope for us yet. I'd still be much more leary of being stranded by a discharged battery than by an empty tank of gas, but there would be far more plausible applications for 100% battery power than I believed possible.

And, uh, power bar? :huh:

http://www.mensjournal.com/healthFit...t_powerBar.jpg

:p

Potential, yes, but far from mrket-ready. My Miata destroys that vehicle in terms of practicality, and I wouldn't dream of not owning a second vehicle with it. (At least not for long; the van might be sold today and it might be a month or 3 before I get my dad's truck...) Let's see a minivan-sized version and I'll hop up there on that bandwagon too.

And if you are terified of running out of "eGas", carry a small generator, or I'm sure the tow trucks can top you off enough to get you to the next charging station...

Or somebody can give you some of their charge... Just need some fancy jumper cables.

Naw, just break out the exercise bike and cables from the trunk and charge up on leg power. :lol:

Chrysler has been making them since '98 with Lead Acid...

http://www.evworld.com/archives/testdrives/epic.html

0-60 in 17 seconds, 96 mile range all while empty. Get it down to ~12 seconds at near full GVWR and still make 200 miles and you have a winner. The 4-5 hour charge time isn't bad though

Ford was making EV Rangers until the oil companies effectively forced CA to change it's laws... Electric vehicles work and oil campanies will spend more fewer billions for you not to learn/know that.

http://jumpstartford.com/about_the_c..._pickup_truck/

Yes, CARB made a brilliant move, as usual, with the EV mandate. :rolleyes: That law got altered/repealed because it sucked; Ford lost their ass on that vehicle, and Toyota didn't do so swell with their EV RAV-4 either. Hell, hybrids are only now beginning to turn a profit after losing billions over the last decade of development.

Don't be like the pro-gun types and screw up a good position with bad arguments.

Random thought: why doesn't one the major oil companies just invest a paltry $20-30billion in an alternative energy infrastructure for the US? They still get to find ways to assrape us for our transportation costs, yet look like heroes for improve the environment...

Did I mention the marketplace yet? Supply and demand, anyone? When gas is $5+/gallon and people are paying hundreds of dollars/month just for their commute, and they're having trouble making ends meet, Americans will do whatever they have to. Don't think that just because we're Americans we won't behave in certain ways. People here have driven gas-guzzling SUV's and not cared about fuel efficiency so far because it was affordable to do so; when it becomes non-affordable, they won't do it anymore. It's that simple. If purely electric vehicles happened to fill a need at the right price point, people would use them (until something better was developed).

$5/gallon gas isn't doing much to create a market for electric vehicles in Europe. I wouldn't call it impossible, but I'd see a lot of steps (like improving mass transit) in the US before consumers as a whole adopt electric vehicles as the primary option.

Besides, if consumers actually *did* make moves away from dependence on gasoline, watch prices start tumbling. Prices will be high enough to make us bitch, but not high enough to make us stop using gas until something drastic happens. Like, say, a breakthrough in cold fusion. :lol:

Sure, because fuel has always been expensive. If the gas in europe went from $5/gal to $15/gal in a year, you bet there'd be an effect. Just like we'll have issues when the <$3/gal were used to is suddenly in the $6 to $9 range. Fuel can be expensive, as long as there's room in the budget for it. Right now, many people are pushing it to afford $3/gal... when it hits $5, the economy will start to feel it as people stop spending on non-necessities like entertainment, and at $10/gal our oil based infrastructure will probably collapse as on one will be able to afford to ship goods.

Just look at the sales of SUVs lately, and the massive instant depreciation of trucks/SUVs. A brand new $30,000 Nissan Titan is worth about $24,000 the second you drive it off the lot. :eek: People just aren't buying SUVs/trucks like they were 5 years ago, unless of course you're trying to impress your neighbors by spending money on a uselessly expensive wasteful POS.

Praise Jeebus!

It doesn't even take sharp, quick rises in price; people will reduce their consumption of gas and cheaper alternatives will be developed naturally as prices edge higher and higher. Market-driven shifts like that happen over years and decades. I've read some pretty apocalyptic stuff about what is going to happen when we someday suddenly run out of oil, and I don't believe it, at all. All those writers pretty much ignore the laws of economics.

Exactly. Eventually the electric motors will get better and better on hybrids. Home charging will probably start being an option in a few years, so more people will start moving to solar on their homes. In 10 years I think 100 mpg cars will be common place. Then you will start seeing small gas motors that assist a primary electric motors. Then eventually someone will come out with a full electric car probably with a solar roof to recharge the car with a home charging option. None of this is really far fetched, we are just at the being of a drastic change in cars IMO.

And student-mobiles. I could see getting one for my son or daughter to drive to school & back.

I rented an electric car in San Francisco back in November. Funny thing, we were on the road about 30 minutes (supposedly they run for 2 hours) when I looked down & noticed the charge indicator was showing the battery was down to 30%. I freaked out a little. Turns out I had left one of the turn signals on, which was draining the battery. After a stop at Starbucks, I started it up and the battery indicator showed it was back to 2/3 charge. I realized then, the 'remaining fuel' indicator was just as bad as it is in some cars, maybe worse. :lol: