Hybrids Don't Save Money

[sfc 1]

Quote

In its April auto issue, due on newsstands Tuesday, the magazine said the six most popular gasoline-electric hybrids will end up costing owners from $3,700 to $13,300 more over five years compared with similar gasoline models. Much of that comes from the higher purchase price of hybrids vs. non-hybrids, but they also will lose more of their value, the report said.

This is not true, I don't know where the author is getting his data but he is not looking at reality.
My civic hybrid blue book value is higher that the MSRP and it is almost year old with 8000 miles.
A friend bought a prius with 90K, 5years old and it has only lost 20-30% of it's MSRP.
Compare that with my BMW, it has lost 40% of its MSRP after 5 years and 50K, and it is a car that is supposed to be good at keeping its value.
I also get to drive in car pool lanes for a couple of years, this saves me 30 mins a day, add that up and it is 120 hours a year or 3 weeks vacation.
I save about $1500 a year in gas, by the time the warranty expires (100K) this will be $6000 of savings (more if gas goes up again) which covers the extra cost of the car.
Don't base you decision to by a hybrid on this article, it is BS.

[mnealtx 0]

I forsee fuel cells becoming more and more popular as the technology improves.

Currently (from general information I have been able to find) fuel cells are still a minus sum proposition - it takes more energy to isolate the hydrogen than you get back out of the cell.

If anyone has further info, I would like to hear it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[sfc 1]

Quote

Currently (from general information I have been able to find) fuel cells are still a minus sum proposition - it takes more energy to isolate the hydrogen than you get back out of the cell.

it is impossible to get more out that you put in, basic physics, conservation of energy.
The real question is how much does it cost to charge the cell and how efficient is it.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Currently (from general information I have been able to find) fuel cells are still a minus sum proposition - it takes more energy to isolate the hydrogen than you get back out of the cell.

it is impossible to get more out that you put in, basic physics, conservation of energy.
The real question is how much does it cost to charge the cell and how efficient is it.

Ok... how does "grossly minus sum" sound, then? I recall a figure of around 40%, if memory serves me...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[RMURRAY 1]

Quote

Diesels...I think the exhaust pipe should be mounted right on top of the hood. Then the owner would care if they spew soot.

this is the typical (north) american perception. based on our experience in the 70's and what you see coming out of current big rigs, I suppose. modern diesels are very practical. I wish I could get something like an Yaris or Fiesta with a 1.4 liter turbo diesel here in NA. They are coming but it is taking forever. Maybe Americans would not buy but Canadians would.

rm

[RMURRAY 1]

don't get me wrong. fuel cells are coming and the sooner the better. hybrids are a good stepping stone. but today, I'd like a small (under 1.5 litre) turbo diesel in something like a Yaris.

rm

[ExAFO 0]

...So lease the vehicle, and get rid of it after 5 years. You won't have to worry about the batteries no longer holding a charge after 10 years.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[billvon 3,111]

>modern diesels are very practical.

Modern diesels are still filthy compared to modern gas cars. They put out more NOx, and put out a lot of particulate and SOx pollution whereas gas cars put out almost none. Newer standards coming in 07/08 will improve this significantly.

[ExAFO 0]

So what's your solution, Billvon? Or is this a Chicken-Little-esque "Peak Oil--The sky is falling" thing?

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[billvon 3,111]

>So what's your solution, Billvon?

And what problem would you like me to solve? I didn't see you give me one. Is it that diesels are too dirty? If that's your problem, then the solution will be here in about a year, in the form of new EPA requirements on diesel emissions.

(BTW Peak Oil already happened here in the US. Hard to claim that a historical event is a 'chicken little' event.)

[icarusfx99 0]

Quote

I forsee fuel cells becoming more and more popular as the technology improves.

Currently (from general information I have been able to find) fuel cells are still a minus sum proposition - it takes more energy to isolate the hydrogen than you get back out of the cell.

If anyone has further info, I would like to hear it.

The problem with hydrogen is that the vast majority of it is being generated from CH4 (natural gas) in a process called steam reforming. When Katrina hit last year a major portion of the hydrogen production in the US came to a standstill and put a world of hurting on the industry that depends on hydrogen. Just in the very recent past have there been smaller steam reformers that could be located at gas stations, etc. But even with these reformers, we still generate hydrogen from natural gas. So why aren't we using the natural gas immediately???

[warpedskydiver 0]

Bill, I would love it if all US vehicles would be capable of running on Methanol or Ethanol...no damn blends or anything...

motors would last longer run cooler and develop more power if properly tuned due to Alchohol being an oxygen bearing fuel...

look at race cars etc. they can race a fuelie all season long on the same engine sometimes...it's just that reliable...

the bad part is then anyone would be capable of making fuel and the oil companies wont allow that...
we could then stop this massive trade imbalance that plagues our country

[n23x 0]

Quote

they can race a fuelie all season long on the same engine sometimes...it's just that reliable...

Is anybody else laughing their ass off about this statement?

It's along the lines of things that come out of mouth when we're working on new prototypes, "It'll work! Maybe... Nevermind, I dunno..."

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[cumplidor 0]

endless supplies of hydrogen have been discovered on the ocean floor in the form of hyrates. Getting to it is the problem.

But the real problem isn't any of this. The reality is that with all the incredible technological advancements with computers, medical, etc. Gas milage has DECREASED since Henry Ford built his first car. The model T got 25 miles per gallon, and the current average is around 21 or so? Do any of you remember in years past hearing about the 80mpg cars and such, then never hear from them again?

What about the way to convert your car to run on used vegatable oil? (makes the exhaust smell like french fries )

The real deal is, it is not profitable (for certain corporations) for cars to get 50, 60 or 80 mpg. There has been technology to get 80mpg for a long time, but it doesn't facilitate an oil dependent society, which is what our government needs. Think about it, if oil became a non- factor all of a sudden, how many corporations would go belly up? That's not going to happen...

It isn't profitable to have items made from hemp either. They last too long... Did you know that the model T cab was made from hemp?

[billvon 3,111]

>Do any of you remember in years past hearing about the 80mpg cars
>and such, then never hear from them again?

They almost exist now. The Smart diesel gets 69mpg, but is mainly sold in Europe, where a) gas is more expensive, b) cities are smaller and c) people are not as fashion conscious. The closest you can come in the US is the Insight (~60mpg; people get 75.)

Problem isn't the technology. Americans just don't want them - and when they have them, they don't want to drive them efficiently.

>The model T got 25 miles per gallon, and the current average is around 21 or so?

Well, to be fair, the top speed of the Model T was around 45mph. If I drive a Honda Civic Hybrid at 45mph I could get 75mpg easily.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

people are not as fashion conscious.

Agreed - most people won't consider a car that doesn't "look cool"

Quote

and when they have them, they don't want to drive them efficiently

*Storngly* agree with that - look how many people bitch about other drivers in the "show off lane" driving the speed limit?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

>Do any of you remember in years past hearing about the 80mpg cars
>and such, then never hear from them again?

They almost exist now. The Smart diesel gets 69mpg, but is mainly sold in Europe, where a) gas is more expensive, b) cities are smaller and c) people are not as fashion conscious. The closest you can come in the US is the Insight (~60mpg; people get 75.)

Problem isn't the technology. Americans just don't want them - and when they have them, they don't want to drive them efficiently.

>The model T got 25 miles per gallon, and the current average is around 21 or so?

Well, to be fair, the top speed of the Model T was around 45mph. If I drive a Honda Civic Hybrid at 45mph I could get 75mpg easily.

Speaking from personal experience I don't think that Europeans are far less fashion conscious than the average American. Europeans too really like to show off their big-ass SUVs they really have no actual need for, it's just that fewer people can actually afford to own them, because of point a). Cities are not that small either, they are just becoming more and more impossible to drive around because of traffic and total lack of parking space
My 2 Eurocents.

Vale

[billvon 3,111]

>Europeans too really like to show off their big-ass SUVs . . . .

Hmm. I spent a week in Aix-en-Provence, France a year back, and saw a grand total of about 5 SUV's. Since Aix is something of an old city, maybe the lack of wide roads/parking contributed to that (like you mentioned.)

[narcimund 0]

Quote

The Smart diesel gets 69mpg, but is mainly sold in Europe, where a) gas is more expensive, b) cities are smaller and c) people are not as fashion conscious.

There are lots of them here in Vancouver BC. Businesses use them as company cars and cover them with advertisements.

And gas is about 50% more expensive than in the US. On the other hand, EVERYTHING is 50% more expensive here...

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[robr 0]

Quote

Quote

I forsee fuel cells becoming more and more popular as the technology improves.

Currently (from general information I have been able to find) fuel cells are still a minus sum proposition - it takes more energy to isolate the hydrogen than you get back out of the cell.

If anyone has further info, I would like to hear it.

The problem with hydrogen is that the vast majority of it is being generated from CH4 (natural gas) in a process called steam reforming. When Katrina hit last year a major portion of the hydrogen production in the US came to a standstill and put a world of hurting on the industry that depends on hydrogen. Just in the very recent past have there been smaller steam reformers that could be located at gas stations, etc. But even with these reformers, we still generate hydrogen from natural gas. So why aren't we using the natural gas immediately???

There's another article on Tech Review that, while not addressing the environmental aspects, does seem to address one economic hurdle to hydrogen-generation. The article describes GE's new less-expensive electrolyzer (tastes great, less filling) and is available at http://www.technologyreview.com/BizTech-R&D/wtr_16523,295,p1.html

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Gas milage has DECREASED since Henry Ford built his first car.

Cars have gotten more efficient. Gas mileage has decreased because manufacturers are subject to both the laws of physics and free markets, where the consumers don't want vehicles where the physics are compatable with good gas mileage.

Among other things fuel economy is a function of speed, frontal area, and mass.

Limiting ourselves to 50 MPH instead of 75 would our losses from drag by over 65% but people don't want to drive that slow.

A skinny car one adult wide (a second passenger could ride in back) would get great gas mileage, but people want cars that will seat 3 across.

A 1500 lb car takes less energy to get up hills but people want 6000 pound SUVs because they're safer.

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

>Europeans too really like to show off their big-ass SUVs . . . .

Hmm. I spent a week in Aix-en-Provence, France a year back, and saw a grand total of about 5 SUV's. Since Aix is something of an old city, maybe the lack of wide roads/parking contributed to that (like you mentioned.)

That, and the average income of the citizens compared to local (rising) gas prices Maybe I sould have phrased it better "Europeans who can actually afford them...".
Ciao

Vale

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Speaking from personal experience I don't think that Europeans are far less fashion conscious than the average American. Europeans too really like to show off their big-ass SUVs they really have no actual need for, it's just that fewer people can actually afford to own them, because of point a). Cities are not that small either, they are just becoming more and more impossible to drive around because of traffic and total lack of parking space
My 2 Eurocents.

I think Europeans fall in love with big power when they visit. A former housemate had a old car from the 70s (early 80s?) with a big V8 in it. He is a Dane. When friends would come visit, they'd get the thing running and cruise around. Don't think they'd use it as a daily car, but definitely had fun with it.

[psw097 0]

The guy that moved into the office next to me just moved from the UK 2 months ago. He bought a Nissan XTerra and just ordered a 38" LCD flat screen TV for his apartment. He mentioned gaining weight also. 2 months in the states and already Americanized.