250 MPG

[rjphoto]

The coasting helps, but the bursting like takes RPM's higher, so from a "less than frugal" gear ratio perspective, it probably hurts.

FWIW, my wife's car is fairly similar...she had a FWD 2.0L Audi 80 (w/Auto) that usually would average 28ish for her commute, but when she replaced it with an AWD 1.8t Audi A4 (w/better Auto), it lost around 4mpg. I can accept the Quattro to be responsible for part of this, but 4mpg seems a bit too much of a penalty for this factor alone, plus going from a 3 speed to a 5 speed Automatic should have also bought some of this back. As such, I'd have to blame the turbocharged motor for at least 2mpg of the efficiency decline.

-hh

HH,
Maybe she just likes the punch of the turbo and is kicking it more that the old one...

BTW...i've been coasting and burning up (not running the air cond. Boy is it hot down here this week) and I squeezed out 34.7 MPG in the Civic this week.

I have also cut back 6.6 miles one-way by taking the surface streets and not the "Beloved" Interstate. The travel time is still the same give or take 3 minutes. There are lots of stop signs and red ights, so I'm wondering how that will impact the MPG (But there are lots of coastable hills too). I'm planning on using that route for one week no execptions just to see.

 

[mikeyredk]

Wait doesn't a turbo engine save on fuel?

 

[-hh]

Wait doesn't a turbo engine save on fuel?

Versus the same displacement engine, but not turbocharged? No.

Versus a significantly larger displacement (same HP) engine? Usually some, but it depends on the duty cycle.

FWIW, don't forget that MPG is really an incomplete measure...the bottom line to operating costs is "$$ per mile", which includes insurance, depreciation, maintenance and repairs in addition to merely fuel. For a turbo vs a conventional ICE, it will have a higher degree of complexity will inevitably increase repair frequency and costs and thus will affect the bottom line cost-per-mile of operation.


-hh

 

[-hh]

HH,
Maybe she just likes the punch of the turbo and is kicking it more that the old one...

Nah, not really.

When she first got it, I bought her a membership in Audi's Quattro Club, so as to try to encourage her to sign up for a performance driving school and/or to get out to Autocross the car ... "Its Driver Eduation so as to better learn how it drives, dear".

My ulterior motives were that this would then fold nicely in me being then able to play hookie more often to attend my local PCA AutoX days, under the rationale that we would both go...her Audi would run in Group LX (Ladies / Non-Porsche).

Nope, no such luck.


-hh

 

[Xtremehkr]

How environmentally friendly are those batteries when they are disposed of?


Lethal

Kudos to the submitter for highlighting the good reporting work done by the author of the article. And kudos to the individuals who have gone beyond the current corporate standard to improve upon the product that is currently available.

Raspberries to those who introduce a political agenda to work that is ultimately beneficial to everyone as a whole.

It would have taken (0.12 seconds) plus however long it takes you to type "battery recycling" to yield the following results;

Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation.
Battery Solutions Inc.
Battery recycling information sheet.
Battery Council International

The preceding results are just four of about 666,000 for battery recycling. Granted, not all are going to be useful, but the first three show that using battery power improve the efficiency of using oil for energy is not more detrimental than using oil alone.

It shows that, in fact, using battery power to improve the efficiency of petroleum based engines can both benefit the consumer and another industry that recycles old batteries for reintroduction to the system.

Hybrid technology, in its infancy, not only improves the average MPG which will ultimately help lower the cost of transportation for the average consumer, is also creating a market for those who would recycle those batteries in order to reintroduce them to the market. Even more of a gain to the economy.

Hybrid technology in the future will likely introduce an indisputable benefit for the consumer and still support the new industries that benefit from recycling the old batteries. Toyota, among others, is committed to introducing more hybrid technology. Bring on the Diesel hybrids, when they are environmentally viable, as they will be.

I am disappointed by the introduction of partisan politics to an area which is ultimately beneficial to the market place as a whole. To me, it is unnecessary, it makes no sense to oppose technology that improves use of a resource that the US more and more often has to import. It lowers the level of discussion when it comes to finding ways to continue improving the efficiency of the economy as a whole.

Not only that, but it is creating a complimentary industry that profits from recycling the batteries used in the first place. Industry and production, as far as I know, is beneficial to a nations economy. Not only does this new technology improve efficiency, it provides secondary production that works to add even more efficiency. I am struggling to see the problem here.

Please, let's leave aside the partisan aspects of the discussion. It takes minimal research, (0.12 seconds) + the time taken to type "battery recycling," to answer the question of what happens to the old batteries.

I have a feeling it would take a lot longer to explain why the question was asked in the first place, in lieu of just researching the problem yourself.

If you are game though, explain how we would benefit from not taking advantage of technological advances that could be currently made to deal with skyrocketing oil prices. Explain how stagnation or regression would benefit the economy in lieu of moving forward.

/The internet may be the new forum for real discussion, but it is falling victim to the problems that existed in the old forums.
//ignore the comments in the slashies.

 

[mpw]

...Would you consider driving an electric vehicle and if the idea doesn't stick in your throat what would it's minimum specification be before you'd consider it, style and looks discounted?

OK, if nobody else wants to go first I will.

A four seater
60mph top speed
0-60mph in 10secs.
90miles mile range (whether cruising or city stop/start driving)
Both top speed and range requirements must be achievable while driving at night with the headlights, heater/AC, windshield wipers and radio/CD player all in use.
Full charging from standard electrical outlets in 7hrs.
Faster charging from specialist outlets (in car parks/garages etc.)
Size, price and interior comfort to be comparable to present Ford Focus/VW Golf.

An electric car to the above spec. I’d buy today any hesitation.

In addition to the above I’d happily see legislation that would make this sort of vehicle more attractive to the everyday commuter. Once there is enough of these cars on the road or even once the demand and forecast growth of this sector allows I’d like to see the option of a swappable battery.

Imagine a standard battery fitted below the trunk where you back up to an automated battery changer at a filling station and your on your way again in the same time it takes to re-fuel with gas.

 

[cslewis]

We wouldn't have to worry about energy at all if we built nuke plants that run on uranium and thorium as well as breeder reactors... we could have almost limitless energy, and with breeder reactors, we'd eliminate all but a tiny portion of nuclear waste.
________________________________________
The Super-Phenix

The Super-Phenix was the first large-scale breeder reactor. It was put into service in France in 1984.

The reactor core consists of thousands of stainless steel tubes containing a mixture of uranium and plutonium oxides, about 15-20% fissionable plutonium-239. Surrounding the core is a region called the breeder blanket consisting of tubes filled only with uranium oxide. The entire assembly is about 3x5 meters and is supported in a reactor vessel in molten sodium. The energy from the nuclear fission heats the sodium to about 500°C and it transfers that energy to a second sodium loop which in turn heats water to produce steam for electricity production.

Such a reactor can produce about 20% more fuel than it consumes by the breeding reaction. Enough excess fuel is produced over about 20 years to fuel another such reactor. Optimum breeding allows about 75% of the energy of the natural uranium to be used compared to 1% in the standard light water reactor.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fasbre.html

http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear Waste and Breeder Reactors.htm

National Geographic speculates that we only have 50 years of easily mined uranium left, assuming we use 1% of the energy contained in uranium. If we used 75% of the energy in uranium, that means that the resources would last 75 times longer... say hello to 3,750 years of easy-to-get to uranium. Am I correct?

 

[mpw]

... we could have almost limitless energy...

Isn't that going to blow an awful lot of fuses?

 

[-hh]

OK, if nobody else wants to go first I will.

I'll kibbitz on your spec's

A four seater

...which can't have a comprimised trunk for routine storage. For the question of how big does the trunk have to be, I'd set the pragmatic minimum to be "A Full Shopping Cart of Groceries", which is around 15 cubic feet of storage. Note that this is without folding a seat down.

60mph top speed

Less than the speed limit...which no one does around here. I'd call it 90mph if we're talking USA, since you always want to have a bit of reserve power & acceleration capacity above what you would realisticaly expect to drive...for passing on steep hills, etc.

0-60mph in 10secs.

I agree that that's reasonable (its what my 1984 VW Scirocco did), but by today's standards, most people would consider that to be unacceptably slow. I think you would get less pushback if you asked for 8 sec.

90miles mile range (whether cruising or city stop/start driving)

IMO, 90 miles is not really enough of a buffer for reasonably being able to perform ad-hoc unexpected errands. For that, I'd assume around 1.5 hours of operation in addition to the typical round-trip daily commute. IMO, this probably means a minimum of a 200 mile range, although when we get into the general convenience of refilling factors (see below), most people will probably prefer to have 300 miles, since that's roughly what they have today.

While we can cut this back based on the convenience of a home wall socket (nightly top-offs), we also have to remember that there's millions of people who don't live in Suburbia with a nice 2 car garage. For people who have to park outdoors, we have to consider how to prevent problems of power theft in unattended environments...just because it may work technically doesn't mean that it will work socially.

Both top speed and range requirements must be achievable while driving at night with the headlights, heater/AC, windshield wipers and radio/CD player all in use.

Agreed...and don't forget the rear window defogger, since this is straight resistance heating. Overall, the biggest concern I have with a pure electric vehicle is getting stuck in a snowstorm for several hours (FWIW, my personal record is 3 hours for what's normally a 20 minute & 10 mile commute...that's a ninefold ad-hoc increase in anticipated fuel load needs).

Full charging from standard electrical outlets in 7hrs.
Faster charging from specialist outlets (in car parks/garages etc.)

I'd want to have specifications for a fast partial charge from a standard 15A 110V outlet. I'm not sure offhand what numbers would be reasonable to ask for from an energy/physics standpoint, but I would be willing to make this 'fast charge' come from the equivalent of a standard houshold 240V "Electric Dryer outlet", which I think is 20 Amps.

Size, price and interior comfort to be comparable to present Ford Focus/VW Golf.

So you want a four seater that doesn't really have good leg & head room for four?

An electric car to the above spec. I’d buy today any hesitation.

You're probably ignoring differences in price...would you really buy a $50,000 Ford Focus?


(Swappable Battery)

Imagine a standard battery fitted below the trunk where you back up to an automated battery changer at a filling station and your on your way again in the same time it takes to re-fuel with gas.

As a Mechanical Engineer, I can imagine that. While your general intention is good, it would be a nightmare, both from the complexities of the engineering implimentation in a competitive and heterogeneous environment (unlikely to really have one standard battery pack), as well as from an economics standpoint: take a look at the condition of those 18lb propane tanks that are now available as a tank-swap and tell me if you would be willing to do an even-swap with one of these dregs when your nice electric car's battery pack is brand spanking new. What may work perfectly well technically may not be able to be applied in a competitive marketplace.


-hh

 

[mpw]

I'll kibbitz on your spec's ...Less than the speed limit...which no one does around here. I'd call it 90mph if we're talking USA, since you always want to have a bit of reserve acceleration capacity above what you would realisticaly expect to drive.

We have a max. speed limit of 40mph

I agree that that's reasonable (its what my 1984 VW Scirocco did), but by today's standards, most people would consider that to be unacceptably slow. I think you would get fewer pushback if you asked for 8 sec.

Current UK spec. middle of the range 1.6L Ford Focus does 0-60mph in 11.9sec.

IMO, 90 miles is not really enough of a buffer for reasonably being able to perform ad-hoc unexpected errands. For that, I'd assume around 1.5 hours of operation in addition to the typical round-trip daily commute. IMO, this probably means a minimum of a 200 mile range, although when we get into the general convenience of refilling factors (see below), most people will probably prefer to have 300 miles, since that's roughly what they have today.

I live on a 9mix5mi island.

...we have to consider how to prevent problems of power theft in unattended environments...just because it may work technically doesn't mean that it will work socially....

Agreed but I hardly think that the technology to padlock a power outlet would be a deal breaker. There were dedicated spaces in one of the central multi-storey car parks for electric vehicles and the power sockets to charge them while you park, and the parking itself, was free. The trial scheme was dropped because of lack of electric cars. Toyota had supplied a fleet people could lease/hire but then took them back once they'd finished their trial even though people wanted to buy them.

...and don't forget the rear window defogger...

Agreed.

So you want a four seater that doesn't really have good leg & head room for four?

Those are pretty standard family cars for Europe. Obviously Americans are enourmous so will require 15m leviathans!

You're probably ignoring differences in price...would you really buy a $50,000 Ford Focus?

I did say it would need to be comparable priced with today's Focus/Golf. It'll probably be a shock to an American but cars cost alot more in Europe a middle of the range Focus/Golf would be around $25,000.

...would be willing to do an even-swap with one of these dregs when your nice electric car's battery pack is brand spanking new...

I could envisage never owning the battery pack and swapping often it would be up to Shell/Esso/Texaco to adapt there forecourts and provide an acceptable quality product to win my custom.

 

[-hh]

We have a max. speed limit of 40mph...I live on a 9mix5mi island.

Ahh...missed your location - - Jersey is UK, but offshore, IIRC. Yes, you're right that I was being a lot more "Americano-centric" in my comments.

(back seat/Ford Focus/VW Golf)

Those are pretty standard family cars for Europe. Obviously Americans are enourmous so will require 15m leviathans!

Agreed...the US marketplace is grossly "Supersized" in my opinion. Maybe with our petrol rising to ... almost half of your price ... the folks here in America will finally start to sort out the difference between their transportation "Needs" and their "Wants".

FWIW, part of my comment on legroom was because I looked at buying a Golf back in 2002, but was disappointed in that the rear seat legroom wasn't quite enough for myself as a 5'8" tall adult...it just needed 2 more inches. It was greatly improved over my 1984 VW Scirocco (not hard!), but to be practical enough to put friends or the parents back there to go out to dinner, it didn't cut it.

FWIW, if you want to ship a lefthand drive A-Class over here, my wife would love to have it. Sadly, MB has decided to not bring it over, and are instead working on some a derivative they're calling the B-Class...sounds like they've not made any commitment yet.



-hh

 

[GanChan]

Right, but it's basically a cost-benefit loop. They have to have good mass transit systems to make up for the fact that it costs more to drive a car. That kind of social engineering (for better or worse) doesn't seem to work as well in the U.S.

One thing I can say with full confidence....I'm glad I'm on the bus route!

Seriously, we could take some of the immediate sting out of this crisis simply by doing more mass transit and carpooling. The one person=one car scenario is a waste of most of a car's potential. Even with the added weight, one car delivering 4 people to a fairly close-knit set of destinations multiplies the results you're getting out of that tank of gas. I predict we will see more and more carpooling as gas prices soar, purely out of financial necessity, at least among us poor folks.

And for those determined to drive alone...develop a one-seater car! It would be slightly larger than a motorcycle, but marginally safer because of its exterior body. Maybe even power it with a motorbike-based engine....

 

[mpw]

Ahh...missed your location - - Jersey is UK, but offshore, IIRC. ...

Close but no cigar! Jersey is NOT part of the UK, but it is British.

 

[crazydreaming]

i wish you yanks would stop complaining about aparently high fuel costs.

1 us gallon = 3.785 litre
uk fuel costs = 88.9p per litre

the magic F12 button (calculator and unit converter) tells me that at current exchange rates that works out at $6.04 ish per US Gallon.

Maybe it about time you copied the rest of the world and actualy made efficient cars, i.e. a german engineered 3litre V8 will give you a lot more horses and healthier pockets thar an american designed one, plus your speed limits so slow (in places, 55 on some highways, Geez we got 30 in town, 50 on single track(thats 1 lane for both directions Not each) 60 on single caridge wars (1 lane each) and 70 on everything else) heck we have some roads with no speed limits (isle of mann) and still bomb arroung the roads at dangerourly high speeds in 1.0-2.0 Litre hatch backs that weigh less thal a small heard of obese elephants. Americas "drive" (loosest sence of the word) for economic cars seems at best half assed. i mean not signing up for kyoto, lack of diesel cars, and some cars where fuel economy is measured in Gallons per mile.

Im all for fuel economy and saving the planet, my wife has a 1.0Litre 4 cylinder car that gets filled up on £26 ($47.05) and that lasts 300+ miles, my car is a 1.6 4 cylinder takes £45 ($81) to fill the tank and can do 425 miles beafore it needs fuel, if it were a diesil it would my car would cost the same to fill up, but do 900 miles before the next trip to the gas station, with the same Horse power and lower CO2 emissions (those are bad so less is a good thing)

The production model Prius is a great idea but in many real world dosnt do any better (fuel economy) than a diesil and has less power to boot.

I think Fuel cell vehicles or cars with hydrogen engines or even fully battery powerd cars are the way forvard, but until they are viable for every day use at viable prices (prius in uk is overly expencive due to the fact it basicly it has two engines therfore nearly twice the price). but until then i think that new cars should be more efficient and smaller (i.e. more horses for a smaller size)

There are 3 cars out here, all city cars (super compacts i think you'd call them) that were developed by toyota, citroen, and pugeot, that have a 1.0L 3 cylinder petrol engine that only wieghs 79 KG (174 us pounds) and develops 76 Horse power and manages a combined fuel economy figure of arround 61.4 Miles per uk gallon (73.7 miles per US gallon), that is impresive for a small petrol engine, top speed is arround 110 miles per hour and 0-60 in 14seconds. this is the kind of innovation the planet needs NOW as a stopgap until somthing better comes along.

Sorry for the rant earlier, it just riles me up when people complain about high fuel costs when its not realy that high.

Go green!!!

Although I see what your saying about the savings in driving a more fuel efficient car, but who wants to drive a little 1.0L engine??? Not most American's.

I'll take my big 6.0L V8 anyday.

 

[crazytom]

Although I see what your saying about the savings in driving a more fuel efficient car, but who wants to drive a little 1.0L engine??? Not most American's.

I'll take my big 6.0L V8 anyday.

Um....I want to drive a little 1.0L engine...oh, wait, I already do...and somehow it manages to get me from point A to point B just as well as your big 6.0 V8. Enjoy filling up next time.

 

[Counterfit]

You know, gas prices don't have to be as high as they are, seeing as, in most places, a large portion of the price is tax. So stop complaining about our complaints

 

[crazydreaming]

I hear in Venezuela Gas is 12 cents a gallon.

 

[Vanilla]

.....I'm all for smaller, more fuel efficient cars. I own two....

I must admit I did find that comment amusing.

It reminds me of an episode of a British comedy show called Little Britain where a weight-watchers type club leader tried to explain how wonderful a low-fat chocolate cake was by explaining that because it only had half the calories of a normal chocolate cake, you could have twice as much...sweet.

Personally I like electric vehicles as they have (I believe) practically zero emission, but clearly it only makes sense if the power stations are using clean energy themselves to make the electricity in the first place. Gawd knows what you do for airplanes and ships though..

Vanilla

 

[rjphoto]

Although I see what your saying about the savings in driving a more fuel efficient car, but who wants to drive a little 1.0L engine??? Not most American's.

I'll take my big 6.0L V8 anyday.

Hey CD, how much is gas in Buffalo today?

Oh, better yet, Do you have gas up there today... gas stations in Georgia, Alabama, Florida and Mississippi are running out.

When there is no gas available, it doesn't matter what a gallon cost.

Yea, I know it's being caused by panic buying, but when you run out on the side of the road that doesn't make much difference on the way to the hospital.


Hey HH, can you do some math for me today?

I've cut 13.5 miles out of my round trip commute but lost 3MPG (29-30MPG now). Old Route was 46.6 Round Trip, New way 33.6.

Would I save gas a week verses 34mpg? And if so, how much.

Thanks
R

 

[Anonymous Freak]

I've cut 13.5 miles out of my round trip commute but lost 3MPG (29-30MPG now). Old Route was 46.6 Round Trip, New way 33.6.

Would I save gas a week verses 34mpg? And if so, how much.

Thanks
R

Simple math...

46.6 miles divided by 34 miles per gallon = 1.37 gallons.
33.6 miles divided by 29 miles per gallon = 1.15 gallons.

The shorter, less efficient route is better in the long run. Assuming you make this commute every day, that's approximately 1.1 gallons saved every week. At current gas prices (assuming that $3.00 will stay the average for the next year,) you'll save about $170 in one year of driving the shorter route. If you were driving a Prius, which gets BETTER mileage under 'worse' circumstances, and assume you're driving it in such a way to get the best mileage possible, let's assume you could get 60 mpg on your 33.6 mile trip. That would be only 0.56 gallons per day, or approximately $630 in savings a year over your current car on its longer route.

 

[crazytom]

I must admit I did find that comment amusing.

Re: having two cars...

Yeah, I guess that I should explain that my 'household' has two cars...you know...man and wife (and child), two jobs with different work hours....is that clearer...and less funny?

 

[Vanilla]

Re: having two cars...

Yeah, I guess that I should explain that my 'household' has two cars...you know...man and wife (and child), two jobs with different work hours....is that clearer...and less funny?

Of course!

In isolation the phrase – out of context - was to me very amusing for the reason I mentioned, but of course I understand what your meaning was. There was absolutely no intention on my part to cause offence, (blame it on my twisted British sense humour(!)) but if I have then please accept my full and unreserved apology.

By way of example, that last sentence could be read in a number of ways but was in fact written with genuine intent.

Cheers
Vanilla
PS: That little Britain skit is very funny ;-)

 

[-hh]

Close but no cigar! Jersey is NOT part of the UK, but it is British.

Okay, you're going to have to explain that one to me...I know that geographically, the Channel Islands are arguably French...but they're politically part of the UK.

FWIW, I've considered the "UK" term to be general and all-encompassing, ie all of the regions...Briton, Wales, Scotland, Bermuda, Cayman Islands (with some of these being Crown Colonies), etc. i've chosen to do this because a group of UK business associates includes some non-Britons who seem to not particularly appreciate being merely called 'British'. As such, I thought that "UK" would be less potentially offensive. Was I on the right/wrong track here?

Thanks,

-hh

 

[mpw]

...I know that geographically, the Channel Islands are arguably French...but they're politically part of the UK.

FWIW, I've considered the "UK" term to be general and all-encompassing, ie all of the regions...Briton, Wales, Scotland, Bermuda, Cayman Islands (with some of these being Crown Colonies), etc. i've chosen to do this because a group of UK business associates includes some non-Britons who seem to not particularly appreciate being merely called 'British'. As such, I thought that "UK" would be less potentially offensive...

Ok, just so you don't get beaten and burnt should you ever visit Jersey.

The United Kingdom (UK) is England, Scotland and Wales. Each has historically had a King (or Queen, but you don't get Queendoms although you do get Dom. queens) and is therefore a Kingdom. Not 100% on the history of Northern Ireland but I don't think that is a Kingdom which is why you often hear the UK & Northern Ireland. Each of the Kings in these countries has at some point been conquered by other Kings etc. to the point where presently the titles are held by the Queen of England.

In 1066 the French Duke of Normandy William conquered King Harold at Hastings and took England becoming King. At the time Jersey came under the rule of Normandy so our Duke had taken England and become it's King over the next couple of hundred years other French Dukes and Kings took back Normandy as the Duke was now also King of England he stayed. But Jersey stayed loyal to their Duke and refused to be ruled by the French.

1204, Our Duke the King of England was having a spot of bother with the peasants and fled to Jersey where again we stayed loyal and on his triumphant return to England he gave his loyal Jersey subject autonomy from English rule. He also gave part of the new world to a bloke who's family still live locally called the De Carterets. Unfortunately they weren't very imaginative and just called it 'New' Jersey, pah!

We still have our own Government, currency, stamps, taxes etc. but do import 99% from the UK. We worked out a deal with the EU so we can move about as we like and trade tax free. We can work and live in the UK with no problem but need a work permit for the rest of the EU, although we can live there.

Unless the wether really bad you can see the coast of France and on a nice day, like last weekend, you can clearly see Normany's beaches ~12mi. away.

We are not English and certainly NOT French but either language can be used officially although 99% of people only speak English. Oddly French was still the 'official' language until ~1963.

The Channel Islands were the only part of the British Isles occupied by the Nazi's(1940-1945).

Jersey's a tiny island 9x5mi. but has a wealth of history and real boom/bust economy.

the correct term would be Jerriais but as that would mean nothing to most people outside we settle for British, never English.

 

[aloofman]

We still have our own Government, currency, stamps, taxes etc. but do import 99% from the UK. We worked out a deal with the EU so we can move about as we like and trade tax free. We can work and live in the UK with no problem but need a work permit for the rest of the EU, although we can live there.

Long story short, Jersey is a little historical anomaly that wasn't worth subduing like Ireland or Scotland. It is independent in the sense that the UK doesn't administer it much, but if, say, France were to try to claim it, London would assert itself over the issue.

If I had to guess, the closest American equivalent would probably be Guam or the U.S. Virgin Islands, but that probably still doesn't quite describe it.