The truth about 35 MPG - Page 3 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 18th, 2008, 03:09 PM   #41
Haggar
Covered in mud...
 
Haggar's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Oxford, MI
Posts: 17,793
iTrader: (58)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by farmergregman View Post
There was just an article about the turbo diesel jk 4 door that the British have been using for two years that get 29.1

Check out the nov dec 2007 issue of low range. magazine pg. 36
I do not think the editors of Low Range are a bunch of tree hugging liberals. That milage is a lot closer to 35 mpg than my buddies jk rubicon that gets 16 mpg. Well just keep buying em cause were boomers then when they have wrung out that market they come out with these for the US. Also for all who have bought large screen, wait till the organic screens hit the market. Of course they will wait till market saturation has occued on that to

the heck with em drive a CJ
Now, lets look at the Diesel WK, they are the smae size and weight, but with better aeodynamics as the 4dr JK, with a 3.0 Diesel V6 for our market. In testing, they seem to only pull down about 19-20mpg combined. I don't see it hitting 29-30 mpg.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 97xj View Post
something else that I did not see here.

hybrids or eletrics have an issue with the manufaturing and disposal/recycling of the batterys.

NiCad, NMh and Li batteries have some bad stuff in them to. We are more or less just doing the pollution shuffle. We are fooling ourselves if we think we are that much greener by driving a hybrid car.

Same is true for all of the other light wieght materials. It takes energy to produce /dispose /recycle them as well.

Again, its the big picture people like to ignore. Batteries are nasty stuff, and they have a poor lifetime and cold temp performance. You need several hundred pounds to get the energy storage required for good performing all-electric. With production in the US running around 15mil per year, if you had 400 lbs of batteries per car, thats 600,000,000 lbs of batteries per year.

The bigger problem is when your 6 year old car needs $4000 in new batteries. What then?

The service parts requirements were one of the big reasons those EV1s were pulled from the public after the leases.
Haggar is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old January 18th, 2008, 03:38 PM   #42
JohnnyJ
Low Range Drifter
 
JohnnyJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Hartland, MI
Posts: 6,369
iTrader: (38)
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by farmergregman View Post
There was just an article about the turbo diesel jk 4 door that the British have been using for two years that get 29.1
are they quoting US MPG or Imperial MPG when they quote 29.1?

29 MPG using imperial is only about 24 mpg in US MPG. The Brits and Canadians both use the imperial measure. (Go figure..)
__________________
Neither Skinny Nor Pretty DEAK Racing 4517 Ultra 4 Mod Class Rig
Surviving Project Car Hell - We have all been there
JohnnyJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2008, 04:08 PM   #43
Brods
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 01-21-07
Location: Salem, Mi
Posts: 704
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Europe's 2007 VW Polo Bluemotion 1.4L 3 cyl turbodiesel = 74.3 mpg

preproduction US 2009 VW Jetta 2L turbodiesel = 50 mpg

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4235586.html
Brods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2008, 04:40 PM   #44
smasheromalley
Senior Member
 
smasheromalley's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,049
iTrader: (15)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post
Again, its the big picture people like to ignore. Batteries are nasty stuff, and they have a poor lifetime and cold temp performance. You need several hundred pounds to get the energy storage required for good performing all-electric. With production in the US running around 15mil per year, if you had 400 lbs of batteries per car, thats 600,000,000 lbs of batteries per year.

The bigger problem is when your 6 year old car needs $4000 in new batteries. What then?

The service parts requirements were one of the big reasons those EV1s were pulled from the public after the leases.
I understand your points, but you make some pretty big generalizations. You're talking every vehicle produced being made as electric in order to get that 600M pounds of batteries, and this huge infrastructure and these new electric power demands. Thats like trying to say hemp grass can replace gasoline Hell ford has plenty of models that only sell a few thousand each month...


re: $4k in new batteries every 4 years...
say 500 miles/week x 52 weeks x 4 years = 104000miles/20mpg = 5200gal x $3gal = $15,000 Id say its a wash

Service parts for a few hundred cars OF COURSE that would be a PITA. Produce the car! Im not talking about car that gets camry sales... How about Miata sales! A niche car, sure no good in the winter...but neither is a miata
smasheromalley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2008, 06:43 PM   #45
Strider
Senior Member
 
Strider's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-07-07
Location: Holland, MI
Posts: 808
iTrader: (19)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via Skype™ to Strider
Default

Bottom line is that energy is rated/measured in British Thermal Units (BTUs) and even the Greenest estimates show the poor performance of electric cars when compaired to gasoline. They don't burn gas, but they abosrb the crap out of coal-produced electricity or in a few cases, nuclear energy.

The answer is NOT in electric vehicles. Not until we find an efficient way to produce and move electricity at least.

The notion that it would harm the President is flatly goofy because it would take 20 years to develop a sale-able electric car for the masses and the people heavily involved in petroleum don't care because they could get involved in the body panels, bateries, and tires anyway. Nice idiotic political jab, but liberal in DC don't exaclty shun oil money. How much does Al burn jet setting from convention to convention all by humself?
Strider is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2008, 08:36 PM   #46
Haggar
Covered in mud...
 
Haggar's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Oxford, MI
Posts: 17,793
iTrader: (58)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smasheromalley View Post
I understand your points, but you make some pretty big generalizations. You're talking every vehicle produced being made as electric in order to get that 600M pounds of batteries, and this huge infrastructure and these new electric power demands. Thats like trying to say hemp grass can replace gasoline Hell ford has plenty of models that only sell a few thousand each month...


re: $4k in new batteries every 4 years...
say 500 miles/week x 52 weeks x 4 years = 104000miles/20mpg = 5200gal x $3gal = $15,000 Id say its a wash
Umm, first, who drives 500 miles per week? Not the average consumer. If you are driving that far, a plug in electric is not going to be feasible.

Second, did you forget the fact of all the electricity you have to pay for to charge those batteries?


On average, a gas engine is going to last just fine for 10-20 years. Not so with a battery pack. Either way, you are going to be paying for fossil-fueled poluting energy.

Sure, not 100% of everything would go to electric.

But if there's going to be a business case, and to make an environmental or oil-dependancy impact, you need to make serious double-digit percentages of the market.

Diesels and hybrids are sitting down around 3-4% each right now. (My company is a lead player in both).

Its going to be that way for any technology, you need to develop a complete infrastructure.

If you want ethanol, from corn, hemp, or whatever else, you need to put a serious effort into it. And honestly, that means massive government subsidies. Thats what keeps the industry running in Brazil. I've had opportunity to see their industry first hand, I don't see ethanol being the answer. The loss of power density has a real affect on things.

If you want hydrogen... where does it come from? Electrolysis? Where's you get all the energy? Burning coal and oil.

Rechargables? Again, you need to get that power from somewhere.

Get over it, its not a conspiricy to keep electric cars from the market. Its thats they don't make sense, technologically, practically, or financially.
Haggar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2008, 08:41 PM   #47
Haggar
Covered in mud...
 
Haggar's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Oxford, MI
Posts: 17,793
iTrader: (58)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brods View Post
Europe's 2007 VW Polo Bluemotion 1.4L 3 cyl turbodiesel = 74.3 mpg

preproduction US 2009 VW Jetta 2L turbodiesel = 50 mpg

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4235586.html

Hey, I'd love to see diesels come out in bigger numbers here. We stand to make millions, since we are one of the larger diesel injector and engine controls companies. (Hybrids, too...)

With present technology and emissions, its tough to get good overall mpg. Dumping fuel to light off cats, to burn out particulate traps, etc, its all bring the mpgs down.


But diesel represents a fairly easy 20-30% gain and something that could be implemented in 3-6 years. Around 2010, you'll see quite a few new light diesels, allt he half tons, lots of cars, etc.

Of course, the industry needs more refinery capacity, or you still end up being 15-20% more for diesel fuel and not gaining anything.
Haggar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2008, 10:59 PM   #48
Brods
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 01-21-07
Location: Salem, Mi
Posts: 704
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Haggar, many good points. Can the batteries be recycled? It sounds like there is no other option as the supply of lithium and /or other materials will be in short supply if hybrid electrics really take off. It would be interesting to see the projected net energy consumption and pollution from producing and recycling batteries.

The Volt (if I understand it correctly) appears to be a vehicle that finally makes some sense. A small internal combustion engine designed to run at its most efficient point while charging a battery pack. Regen braking. No fuel use at stop lights, stuck in traffic etc. Plug in the car to charge during times of low electrical demand, like over night. It seems like the most viable alternative at this time. Can the Volt utilize electricity from both the batteries and the engine at the same time to maximize acceleration? So is the Volt really a net improvement as it seems or just another shifting of the energy consumption and pollution?

As far as the "It cant be done, its too expensive, the timetable is too optimistic, bla bla bla", it’s the 1970's all over again. They figured out a way to do it back then and the cars of today are pretty darn good because of it. But it only happened because all the automakers were forced to improve and innovate. As usual, the cheap ass consumer will rarely pay extra for technical advances, so that is where the government has to step in to force the issue. Is it really any different this time?

As far as the GM partnership to make cellulosic ethanol, unfortunately, growing bugs in a petri dish does not simply scale up to a production plant producing millions of gallons! The partner thinks they have the answers, but does not even have a pilot plant operating yet, let alone a full scale production plant. Lets hope they are right and can pull it off, because plenty of people have special bugs, but to date no one has a system proven to work at full scale production levels.

And its great to finally see some media attention exposing the folly of corn ethanol, its been long overdue. Making fuel from corn is stupid. Making fuel from any food source is stupid. Making fuel from waste by-products or from plants that will not compete with food crops for water or acreage is the only way that makes any sense.

The original post doesn’t touch on Biodiesel. Right now there are production plants making biodiesel from waste vegetable oils and animal fats. There is one in Adrian that is shooting for 10 million gallons per year. I believe there is one going up in Warren. There are also efforts to make bio from aalge and even shit. As long as the feedstock is not food and the process has a positive net energy balance, biodiesel may be a good thing. Iirc there are like 160+ biodiesel plants either in operation or various stages of construction in the US right now.
Brods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2008, 12:15 AM   #49
smasheromalley
Senior Member
 
smasheromalley's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,049
iTrader: (15)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strider View Post
Bottom line is that energy is rated/measured in British Thermal Units (BTUs) and even the Greenest estimates show the poor performance of electric cars when compaired to gasoline. They don't burn gas, but they abosrb the crap out of coal-produced electricity or in a few cases, nuclear energy.

The answer is NOT in electric vehicles. Not until we find an efficient way to produce and move electricity at least.

The notion that it would harm the President is flatly goofy because it would take 20 years to develop a sale-able electric car for the masses and the people heavily involved in petroleum don't care because they could get involved in the body panels, bateries, and tires anyway. Nice idiotic political jab, but liberal in DC don't exaclty shun oil money. How much does Al burn jet setting from convention to convention all by humself?
WHere have you been? GM had a saleable EV 15 years ago


Brods you are right on - especially with the "70s attitude" comment. Like I said before, unfortunately the govt is going to drive this one - and of course as usual they will screw it up, but if industry wont play the game then thats the way it will be.
smasheromalley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2008, 12:19 AM   #50
smasheromalley
Senior Member
 
smasheromalley's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,049
iTrader: (15)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Honestly I havent read much on the volt, but the concept is not new. What is new is a company with the resources of GM finally getting behind it. IMO electric is the ONLY alternative fuel. Watch hydrogen, ethanol and the others die the death of natty gas cars.
smasheromalley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2008, 02:59 AM   #51
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smasheromalley View Post
Honestly I havent read much on the volt, but the concept is not new. What is new is a company with the resources of GM finally getting behind it. IMO electric is the ONLY alternative fuel. Watch hydrogen, ethanol and the others die the death of natty gas cars.
You mean like how GM put their resources behind the EV1 electric car and now gets nothing but grief for it?

The Volt is a Hybrid. Your right, nothing really new there. Hydrogen fuel cells are about the only really new thing out there (and they're not all that new) but as Jesus has pointed out, they have their issues as well.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2008, 08:05 AM   #52
Brods
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 01-21-07
Location: Salem, Mi
Posts: 704
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

LOL very little of the latest hybrid concepts or anything today is new. We'll see a rollout of "new" ideas that were envisioned during the 70's gas crunch or even before that, going all the way back to the early days of automobiles where electric, steam and gasoline powered cars competed against each other. Most of the "innovations" today are really just ways to increase efficiencies and or to mass produce old ideas cost effectively.
Brods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2008, 06:54 PM   #53
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lothos View Post
In the end, the auto industry cannot force feed new fuel demands onto the consumers if the infrastructure is not given the time to adapt slowly. Everyone needs to make money to survive and provide all this new wonderful stuff. Government has done nothing major to help subsidize the fuel station owners for instance.
They've been too busy helping big oil, but since Bush comes from an oil family it's no surprise.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2008, 07:26 PM   #54
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
They've been too busy helping big oil, but since Bush comes from an oil family it's no surprise.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that. One of the groups I support is Governmental Affairs. AKA the lobbyists of Ford. You would not believe the money we poured into trying to get the government to subsidize more e-85 pumps, ethanol production, and biodiesel.

Not to mention fight the initial treehugger CAFE change. It was simply asinine in its initial draft. No company could have succeeded in half of what they wanted.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2008, 01:28 AM   #55
smasheromalley
Senior Member
 
smasheromalley's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,049
iTrader: (15)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
You mean like how GM put their resources behind the EV1 electric car and now gets nothing but grief for it?

The Volt is a Hybrid. Your right, nothing really new there. Hydrogen fuel cells are about the only really new thing out there (and they're not all that new) but as Jesus has pointed out, they have their issues as well.
GM gets grief from people who want to give them money for an EV. Strange eh?

Hydrogen is really quite ridiculous, but something good may just come out of all the cash they're blowing on research.
smasheromalley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2008, 01:50 AM   #56
skife
Senior Member
 
skife's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-12-07
Location: cedar springs mi
Posts: 5,133
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to skife Send a message via MSN to skife
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
You can make more ethanol from an acre of hemp than corn. Far more. And it grows right back in a few months. Like a weed, which is probably why they called it that in the first place....

Legalize hemp production! Oh wait, we can't do that, that would hurt big oil..... And Geo. W.... And the ignorant repub's that support him.........

Watch the documentary, "Who killed the electric car?" and learn a thing or two about what really went down.
yeah, legalize hemp?

we could get this country into shape alot easier if it wern't for politics.
skife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2008, 09:45 AM   #57
Haggar
Covered in mud...
 
Haggar's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Oxford, MI
Posts: 17,793
iTrader: (58)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brods View Post
LOL very little of the latest hybrid concepts or anything today is new. We'll see a rollout of "new" ideas that were envisioned during the 70's gas crunch or even before that, going all the way back to the early days of automobiles where electric, steam and gasoline powered cars competed against each other. Most of the "innovations" today are really just ways to increase efficiencies and or to mass produce old ideas cost effectively.
Well, thats like saying that we invented the lightsaber in the 70s. Whenever they DO actually make on, we can say it was already thought up.. :tonka: We can't really credit Jules Verne for inventing the nuclear sub...


Electronics/processing/sensing technology is just getting fast and cheap enough to actully develop some of this stuff. But most ideas aren't quite *that* old.

Really would like to see full electric accessory drive and valvetrain become widely implemented. That would allow complete control of cylinder filling, and take a ton of parasitic mechanical drag off the engine.
Haggar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2008, 11:56 AM   #58
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

[QUOTE=Lothos;908366]Yeah, keep telling yourself that. One of the groups I support is Governmental Affairs. AKA the lobbyists of Ford. You would not believe the money we poured into trying to get the government to subsidize more e-85 pumps, ethanol production, and biodiesel.QUOTE]

Thank you for arguing in support of my argument. All of those things compete with big oil, and they don't want that.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2008, 02:25 PM   #59
Brods
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 01-21-07
Location: Salem, Mi
Posts: 704
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post
Well, thats like saying that we invented the lightsaber in the 70s. Whenever they DO actually make on, we can say it was already thought up.. :tonka: We can't really credit Jules Verne for inventing the nuclear sub...


Electronics/processing/sensing technology is just getting fast and cheap enough to actully develop some of this stuff. But most ideas aren't quite *that* old.

Really would like to see full electric accessory drive and valvetrain become widely implemented. That would allow complete control of cylinder filling, and take a ton of parasitic mechanical drag off the engine.
No need to go overboard, we are not talking about science fiction speculation. There is a big difference between being the first to develop a truly novel process or concept and simply refining existing ones which, for whatever reasons, were not economically viable at an earlier time. (“Simply” is not meant to imply that refining is easy)

Wasn’t the GM hybrid pickup from a couple years back equipped with electrically driven accessories and a 42/12 volt electrics? I just assumed that model was a test bed for the future hybrid electrics. What ever happened to that model?
Brods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2008, 10:38 AM   #60
smasheromalley
Senior Member
 
smasheromalley's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,049
iTrader: (15)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Well here's your lightsaber:
LINK

And in 5 years GM/ford/chrysler will have to play catch up again

Last edited by smasheromalley; January 21st, 2008 at 10:41 AM.
smasheromalley is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:39 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.40337 seconds with 80 queries