Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Midsize Sedans 2.0
13142 messages, Last post on Nov 08, 2009 at 7:34 PM
You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: plekto (Jan 01, 2009 9:51 pm) If that design was so superior - why hasn't it already been built? |
|
|
Replying to: plekto (Jan 01, 2009 9:51 pm) As for the Volt... anyone who can actually afford one, and thinks it will pay off for them compared to a hybrid like the 2010 Fulan or Prius, go for it. |
|
|
Replying to: plekto (Jan 01, 2009 9:51 pm) The Prius and Honda methods (both of which are different, by the way), as well as the Ford method, have one distinct advantage, as mentioned. They have been proven to be practical in the real world. That "series-hybrid" which you described, which for the sake of argument we'll call "series-hybrid," ok? Anyway, it hasn't proven practical in cars. Trains, yes. Trains are hideously expensive. Cars, no. They're trying with the Volt, but the fact is you have to have batteries in between, because below a certain size, an electric generator doesn't produce enough electricity to move itself and its fuel around. 5.22 kW isn't enough to move the lightest car around unless it doesn't meet crash standards. And that 1901 car could only go about 25 MPh...and in fact could only go about 25 miles, which means it was only carrying around an hour's worth of fuel, which isn't much. Fuel is heavy. To carry more around you need more power, which means you need a bigger generator, which means you need more power and more fuel, which means you need to pull more weight, which means you need more power, which means you need a bigger generator, etc. The Volt comes close to your series-hybrid design, but still needs batteries to act as storage/capacitors. It's going to be $40,000 to start. You can get a Toyota/Ford/Honda style hybrid for half that.
|
|
|
Replying to: bpizzuti (Jan 02, 2009 6:50 am) You basically need a 40-50HP motorcycle engine that's designed to run at one optimal speed to generate power. But the car would have some batteries to handle passing and acceleration of course, since you don't usually NEED more than 40-50hp in a car at highway speeds except for brief periods of acceleration. Toyota and Honda designed the cars that way so that they could run purely on gas if the batteries ran down to nothing. More of a fallback measure, when it's really not required. They would have done better with a half sized engine just generating power. Why did they do this? Because if the batteries go completely dead, then it would chug along like a VW Bug(say a really long mountain pass you're climbing up). Myself, I don't really care about going a bit slower for 3-4 miles if it means the rest of the time it gets 100mpg+.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: plekto (Jan 02, 2009 10:25 pm) maye enough to pull over to the side of the road, if you run out.
|
|
|
C/D compared four mid-sized hybrid sedans in its February issue: Altima, Camry, Fusion, and Malibu. Don't read further if you don't want to learn how they were ranked. The Malibu, a "mild" hybrid, was ranked last by a large margin. It averaged only 29 mpg on a 300 mile test loop that combined rural, highway, and urban driving. Consider that some non-hybrid mid-sized sedans can get very close to that. C/D also had gripes on the interior comfort and quality, and how abruptly the engine engages from auto-stop. Next was the Altima. It actually did a tad better than the Camry in FE overall, 32 to 31 mpg, and was the quickest of the four. But it was knocked for lack of refinement. The Camry was second and was praised for its silky operation and interior quality. But as is typical for C/D reviews of Toyotas, it was knocked for being like an "old man's car". The Fusion was their top choice by a significant margin, averaging 34 mpg on the test loop. It was also praised for combining Toyota smoothness with driving involvement. I was wondering about the value proposition of these hybrids though. For example, the Fusion starts at $28k and was $32.5k as tested. Given that a I4 sedan can be had for about $10-12k less, and could probably average at least 25 mpg on a combined rural/highway/city loop, the savings in gas at 15k miles a year and $4/gallon is about $635 a year. Quite a payback time--and gas isn't at $4/gallon now. Also consider that the Camry did the best on the highway of the 4 cars yet got 34.8 mpg there. Some mid-sizers could get very close to that if not match it on the highway. In the city, though, the Fusion got 36.9 mpg. That is perhaps double what a non-hybrid mid-sizer would do. (But the Malibu got only 19.8 mpg city!) So it appears the value proposition for full hybrids like the Fusion is best when the car is mostly driven in the city.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: backy (Jan 03, 2009 7:22 am) Ah, and just think, if it stays cheap, we will be reading years from now about how stupid the managements of Ford and GM were for wasting all this money developing hybrids, instead of upgrading their profitable trucks and SUVs.  I assume there are more differences than just the hybridness if there is a $10-12K price difference. 
|
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Jan 03, 2009 6:06 am) maybe enough to pull over to the side of the road, if you run out. **** Maybe - but you're dead as well in a normal car if you run out. The differences are: 1 - The generator can use any number of fuels, and can be of any kind. I suggest a small turbine engine burning diesel fuel. Or that can run stuff other than petroleum based fuels. (say, already designed to run vegetable oils as well as diesel) 2 - vastly less weight and parts to fix. Said small engine could easily be air/heatsink cooled as well, meaning that you could eliminate 90% of the things that typically break and require fixing in a car. No coolant system(huge), plus not needing things like an alternator or transmission. Think VW Bug or Go-Kart simple. The vast majority of the vehicle is empty space as a result. 3 - tons cheaper to buy. Instead of a battery pack that can run 20-30 miles on its own, you have a smaller set of 2-4 batteries and some capacitors. BAttery replacement every 5-10 years is closer to $500. 4 - less weight (1000+ lbs lighter than a Prius) also means much quicker acceleration and less power needed to move it around. Less expensive components as well. This should save 10-20mpg right here. The problem is that nobody is making one because they all worship speed instead of efficiency. I'd happily deal with a 1980s era Civic CRX sized small car with 100mpg and 0-60 times in the 10-15 second range.(same as most older cars, so traffic isn't going any quicker anyways).
|
|
|
Replying to: backy (Jan 03, 2009 7:22 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: elroy5 (Jan 03, 2009 9:08 am) The only reason to buy a Prius is to show people that you have a hybrid, since it doesn't look like any normal midsize sedan. |
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2011 Hyundai Sonata
2010 Toyota Camry
2010 Honda Accord
2010 Nissan Altima
2010 Volkswagen Passat
2010 Mazda MAZDA6
2010 Ford Fusion
2010 Chevrolet Malibu
2009 Saturn Aura
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
