I get more and more depressed every time I see articles on these. I have just been looking at Jay Leno's site where he is testing a Ford Fusion Hybrid (basically a last generation Mondeo Saloon). It is billed as green and yet they are touting only 39 mpg. The Engine and CVT moan away when he gives it some like a moose being strangled. Sounds just like the old CVT Escort a friend of mine had (before the belts snapped) It even has a little tree graphic that grows when you are driving in an economical fashion.

I think that if these things are the future I'd rather walk, especially since nobody mentions the costs of the battery, the extra cost of building the cars and the need to get rid of the batteries afterwards. Jay did make me laugh though when he said that "the youth are really into this ecology thing it's like the new tune up and hotrodding". He hasn't visited the Fabia 1 forum.

Depressing though....

He hasn't visited the Fabia 1 forum.

Yeah, 'cos non one ever talks about fuel economy on there...

Depressing though....

Not necessarily - in fact, it was Jay Leno himself who pointed out that the benefit of "eco-vehicles" is that they leave more resources available to be used and enjoyed properly.

So, for example, you'd use your eco-sh!tbox for commuting each day - a journey you're probably never going to enjoy, even in a something exotic, and you don't use much fuel.

Then, when you fancy a bit of a fun at the weekend, you dust off your petrol-powered classic and take it for a blat - overall for the week your fuel usage is probably going to be lower, hence the finite oil resource will last longer, as will your classic car that you're not piling the miles on by commuting.

Of course, a lot of people buy cars as tools and wouldn't ever bother owning the "enthusiast" car - leaving more oil resource for those who would actually enjoy it, and also improving air quality, etc. etc.

Rob.

I know some environmental scientists, and they regard hybrids as a distraction from the real goals of making properly economical cars that don't rely on things like nickel.

It is billed as green and yet they are touting only 39 mpg.

Having not read the article I don't know which they are using, but isn't American MPG different to English MPG in some way? Could be wrong.

Just googled it and it if it is US MPG it is roughly 46 UK MPG, which still isn't fantasic though.

(http://www.markporthouse.net/rangie/fuelconsumptionconversion.htm#)

Edited 7 May, 200917 yr by TriggerFish
Add Link

Hybrid cars are not the answer, they just divert time and resources away from making fuel cell cars viable. Trouble is all the greenies seem to want change straight away and they seem to be so short sighted they cant see past the end of next week.

they just divert time and resources away from making fuel cell cars viable.

That's assuming fuel cells are The Answer. They might just be a distraction from high-efficiency battery-powered vehicles charged from properly sustainable energy sources - something which developments in hybrids (and the batteries used therein) will no doubt contribute towards.

Rob.

Fuel cells - nice idea, but where does the Hydrogen for them come from? Big clue; you emit fewer carbons by just burning the petroleum in the engine.

ATM, if you're bothered about carbon emissions, try and reduce your short journeys and time in jams, and drive a diesel, or possibly a small FSi type engine.

IIRC there was an article highlighting the eco damage done in Canada making the batteries for the Toyota hybrid.

I really cant see that these hybrids are saving fuel as it still has a fossil fuel burning engine (either petrol or diesel),if the engine pumps out say 103gm, then why bother with additonal batteries for electrics, the fossil engine is still pumping out 103gm, and pulling the extra weight of the batteries & the electric motors.( get rid of the extra weight and the engie will work better on its own )

If we have to go alternate , then JFDI, stop the wasteful half measures.

I think all this hydrogen cell stuff is a big turn off and just pie in the sky at the moment. I read in one of the magazines recently that even the best cars are sloppily engineered to save money. We need improved efficiency from our combustion engines along with weight saving without compromising strength or safety. Cars have grown bigger I mean look at the current Mondeo. It is as big as the old Granada hatch and for that reason I wouldn't want one. At least the Granny came with a big 2.9 V6!

If the yanks would all start driving cars that will do more than 10 MPG, we would cut fuel usage by about 60% One of the worst countries for wasting resources. Hybrids are not green at all. Once they can crack hydrogen easily, HFC is the answer.

If the yanks would all start driving cars that will do more than 10 MPG

The inefficiency of American cars is something of a myth - as highlighted, US gallon is different from UK gallon, which makes mpg comparisons seem less favourable. Most American cars are comparable to European cars for economy, despite having larger engines (the heavy state of detune probably helps this).

Once they can crack hydrogen easily, HFC is the answer.

Most people dismiss hybrids for the environmental damage of producing the batteries - the same applies for fuel cells. Additionally, fuel cells are remarkably inefficient - so it'll take a shedload of energy at source to produce the hydrogen, and most of this energy consumed will essentially be wasted because of the cell inefficiency.

Rob.

.... They might just be a distraction from high-efficiency battery-powered vehicles charged from properly sustainable energy sources - something which developments in hybrids (and the batteries used therein) will no doubt contribute towards.....

Sorry but :rofl:

Towards the end of the 20th century all the major battery manufacturers got together to pool research and ideas to hit a list of objectives for battery technology for the 21st century. I can't remember the figures off the top of my head but they were not exactly challenging, IIRC they hit one (just).

Additionally, fuel cells are remarkably inefficient - so it'll take a shedload of energy at source to produce the hydrogen, and most of this energy consumed will essentially be wasted because of the cell inefficiency.

IIRC fuel cells using petrol as a source of hydrogen run around 30% efficiency, methane as a source around 70% and hydrogen directly around 90%. Your average well maintained car engine runs around 35%.

I think I've binned all the stuff I had from Uni when I took my degree otherwise I'd be able to quote sources etc.

The inefficiency of American cars is something of a myth - as highlighted, US gallon is different from UK gallon, which makes mpg comparisons seem less favourable. Most American cars are comparable to European cars for economy, despite having larger engines (the heavy state of detune probably helps this).

You're right that US cars are not that different in terms of efficiency, certainly when you factor in the different gallon.

However, US cars are massive compared to UK cars, on average. So even if the efficiency is the same, they still consume more fuel because of their size, which is probably what the other poster really meant.

E.g. Range Rovers on UK roads tend to stand out as being big (almost stupid big!), on US roads they look average, certainly don't stand out from the crowd!

Hybrid cars are not the answer, they just divert time and resources away from making fuel cell cars viable. Trouble is all the greenies seem to want change straight away and they seem to be so short sighted they cant see past the end of next week.

Like catalytic converters diverted development form lean-burn technology for a while.

I'm not convinced about fuel cell, but hybrids (and even worse, electric cars that use power generated in coal-fired power stations) are not the answer.

Like catalytic converters diverted development form lean-burn technology for a while.

Actually, using a cat makes lean burn effectively impossible, because the cat mandates running stoechemetric fuel-air ratio.

Yep, lean burn was IMHO a better tech that got killed by the green hippies getting a CAT mandated for all new cars.

FWIW if you get enough hydro power then cracking water to get hydrogen wouldn't be using a huge amount of resource so the biggest costs would be chilling it to compress and store the stuff.

All the fun.

I personally think modern cars should be dropping steel body panels for aluminium, carbon or plastics where they save weight and just have a steel/titanium/whatever is appropriate for the price point safety cage.

A 20 year old car was generally under 1 T and a modern car is avaeraging 1.5T even for something small like a fabia.

So lets shave off a third on the weight, stop with the stupid wide tyres and have a few pieces of clever aero engineering combined with sensible grants to fund new efficient engines.

Also if you want distractions making a car breath it's own farts (EGR) is all well and good for reducing NOX, but it also reduces the efficiency of combustion and may well cause increased wear of various parts of the engine over breathing clean air.

at this thread. Its got more elephants in the room than the dawn patrol.

I'm very sorry to all you 3 billion Chindians but you have to back to the fields so that we can conserve resources for our sports cars and have clean air to breathe.

ditto hydrogen

ditto renewable energy electricity supply

ditto lighter cars

just ditto all the wrong heath robinson solutions you've mentioned. We need to change behaviours not just try to do what we already do but a bit better.

I think all this hydrogen cell stuff is a big turn off and just pie in the sky at the moment. I read in one of the magazines recently that even the best cars are sloppily engineered to save money. We need improved efficiency from our combustion engines along with weight saving without compromising strength or safety. Cars have grown bigger I mean look at the current Mondeo. It is as big as the old Granada hatch and for that reason I wouldn't want one. At least the Granny came with a big 2.9 V6!

having owned a hatchback granada and having experienced a mondeo a fair few times i'm sorry but they simply don't compare size wise, the granada was huge inside and still had a massive boot.

Actually, using a cat makes lean burn effectively impossible, because the cat mandates running stoechemetric fuel-air ratio.

Indeed. And at certain times it deliberatly runs rich to control cat temperature.

Hmm I always wanted a Granada. Guess now I have some no claims the insurance would be somewhere nearer to affordable now.

At the end of the day business execs are more interested in filling their Swiss bank account balances. If they can get more cash with pseudo "green", rather than actual green, then that's what they'll do unfortunately. Just look at how powerful the oil industry is and their relationships with Governments across the world. Price fixing is legal for the oil industry, but attracts $billions in fines for Microsoft.

at this thread. Its got more elephants in the room than the dawn patrol.

I'm very sorry to all you 3 billion Chindians but you have to back to the fields so that we can conserve resources for our sports cars and have clean air to breathe.

ditto hydrogen

ditto renewable energy electricity supply

ditto lighter cars

just ditto all the wrong heath robinson solutions you've mentioned. We need to change behaviours not just try to do what we already do but a bit better.

It's all very well taking a high handed tone like this but what would YOU do? People will want to maintain their quality of life and will want ways to do this whilst lessening their environmental impact.Sneering is way; talking about doable improvements to cars short term is less easy and some have a go.

Beng believe it or not the Mondey is very nearly as long as the old Granny but is not so roomy inside.It also hides it's size very well on the road with it's excellent handling. I refused to believe it too until I saw one parked next to a Granada.

Can't easily correct typos on iPod but wanted to say sneering is the easy way out. Hybrids are frankly spurious things and a con by the industry. As Clarkson (who I don't normally have much time for) says you would be a million times better off with a Diesel Golf (or Octy!). In fact Morgan claim that their 4/4 uses less energy than a Prius when you factor in the whole life costs, costs to build as well as the emissions. The Prius costs a fortune to make, uses more raw materials and is only less polluting in limited circumstances. Take one out one the road at motorway speeds and enjoy the miserable performance and the plummeting fuel economy as the 1.5 litre engine has to haul not only a substantial body but a heavy electric motor and corresponding drive and the battery pack. Goodness knows what it's emissions are like at 70 mph.

What is wrong with lighter cars? I'm not a physicist but even I know that the less a car has to move around the less work it has to do and the less it will pollute. Couple weight savings with better aerodynamics (less work through less drag) and higher gearing and you have the basis for cars like the Bluemotion VWs even though these cars don't come anywhere near the efficiency of the little Lupo 1.2 TDI 3L car of several years back which claimed to use 3 litres of Diesel per kilometer though a small highly efficicent Diesel, weight pruning and aerodynamic enhancements.

Let's hear some of your less Heath Robinson arguments. Daiking it's over to you....

Edited 8 May, 200917 yr by Matt Bodycombe

the little Lupo 1.2 TDI 3L car of several years back which claimed to use 3 litres of Diesel per kilometer though a small highly efficicent Diesel, weight pruning and aerodynamic enhancements

I think it was 3 litres of diesel per 100km

I agree with you in the respect that hybrids are not the answer but I believe the more immediate action that should be taken is a massive reduction in the number of journeys made through choices not to travel and also the reduction in the distance travelled for people/goods. Several references to the USA here, and their sub-urban model is an example of everything that is wrong. Everything based around the car and 'local' travel over large distances.

All the hydrogen/electricity arguments conveniently ignore the amount of electricity infrastructure required to make the system work. The holy grail of fusion power is continually reeled out but gets no closer to reality.

Basic economics will destroy our oil dependence long before it actually runs out but instead of you wondering how you're going to fill your car up, you'll be more concerned about putting food on the table, cheap oil = cheap food, expensive oil = hungry

Our elected representatives seem more intent on bailing out an unproductive industry than actually oslving any problems we might like them to.

I could go on...

And all of the above conveniently ignore those 3 Bn Chindians who will see the lives we lead and want of a piece of the action for themselves. Why not? We're thoroughly selfish too.

...... The holy grail of fusion power is continually reeled out but gets no closer to reality. .....

But again, how much research time and effort is wasted on other spurious projects like wind farms, solar power tidal power etc that could be spent on looking past the end of next week and looking into the future?

Nuclear fusion btw has happened, the problem at the moment is to get a net energy output as at the moment more energy is put in than produced.

Sorry yes 3lper 100 km cheers:thumbup: