Article

2005-08-15 Home Front: Tech

Experimental Cars get 250 Miles Per Gallon

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by RG 2005-08-15 13:15|| || Front Page|| [11126 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The problem - illustrated in the picture - is that on existing cars, you'd lose significant trunk space. The odds are that any car kitted out with these things will have to be bigger, just to provide space for grocery shopping.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-08-15 14:40|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-15 14:40|| Front Page Top

#2 I don't know much about physics -but I'm guessing that even if you doubled the car size you wouldn't lose half the MPG. But even if that were true - 125 MPG isn't bad for a car twice that size.

Posted by 2b 2005-08-15 14:45|| 2005-08-15 14:45|| Front Page Top

#3 I don't know... it'd be nice to be able to buy a practical ultra-low-mileage electric/hybrid/fusion-powered De Lorean whenever my current Korean putt-putt gives up the ghost. You know, something more practical than a Prius.

Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H. 2005-08-15 14:49|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2005-08-15 14:49|| Front Page Top

#4 I think we might start to see the introduction of city commuter cars. Tiny hybrids made out of recycled plastic that seat two and go forever on a charge. Put one of those roof racks/boxes on top for the groceries and recharge at least once a week.

No good for taking the kids to the soccer game though, for that you got to get out the Hummer.

Posted by rjschwarz 2005-08-15 15:01|| 2005-08-15 15:01|| Front Page Top

#5 This is the one, I've got my eye on. And it goes like a Ferrari too, or so they claim.

Posted by tipper 2005-08-15 15:54|| 2005-08-15 15:54|| Front Page Top

#6 I have to say BFD.

It's no more efficient than other Prii. It simply gets some energy from a source which isn't being counted. He is getting his energy from a coal plant in Utah or a nukular plant in Arizona.

Meanwhile, the batteries mean the car is much heavier (and has much less cargo capacity), so once the pre-charge is done, he is going to get worse mileage than a box-stock Prius.

Oh, and I just love the line:

but believes automakers could mass-produce them by adding just $6,000 to each vehicle's price tag.

Just $6000? I was going to put $6000 in Fred's tip jar, but if that is such a miniscule amount, I guess I won't bother.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2005-08-15 15:55|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-08-15 15:55|| Front Page Top

#7 It would also be interesting to see how these babies perform in the crash tests.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-08-15 16:00|| 2005-08-15 16:00|| Front Page Top

#8 I was going to put $6000 in Fred's tip jar, but if that is such a miniscule amount, I guess I won't bother.

CORTE MADERA, California (AP)

Well, considering that location, where homes easily go for a cool million, then yes, $6,000 is pretty miniscule by comparison.... ;)

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-08-15 16:11|| 2005-08-15 16:11|| Front Page Top

#9 Jackal: Just $6000? I was going to put $6000 in Fred's tip jar, but if that is such a miniscule amount, I guess I won't bother.

Actually $6,000 is peanuts *if* the car can get 250 mpg. To be conservative, and to account for an increase in the car's size to provide room for the the batteries, as well as the batteries' weight, let's cut that estimate in half, meaning that the car gets 125 mpg. That means a commuter driving a Taurus (30 mpg) and paying about $2,400 a year for gas will get to save $1,800 a year, or about $150 a month. The additional monthly payment (assuming a 7% interest rate and a 60-month term) from a $6,000 increase in the car's value is $110 a month. Like I said - it all depends on the accuracy of the claim. If it is possible to get 125 mpg, then a $6,000 increase in the car's price is peanuts, assuming current gas prices.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-08-15 16:22|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-15 16:22|| Front Page Top

#10 Zhang, it bets 250 mpg until the battery wears down. Then it goes to normal Prius mileage less the cost of hauling dead batteries around. This is a commute vehicle for 1/2 hour commutes.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-08-15 16:27|| 2005-08-15 16:27|| Front Page Top

#11 I decided to become active in this effort to go to PHEV cars.

The bottom line: I want to stop giving money to guys who want to slit my throat. If nothing else, it's a life style issue.

Posted by Penguin 2005-08-15 16:58|| 2005-08-15 16:58|| Front Page Top

#12 A fully electric car would do infinite miles per gallon. So what! This is just a brainless MSM pap piece. Where does the electricity come from? How is it generated? And how much does it cost?

Posted by phil_b 2005-08-15 17:27|| 2005-08-15 17:27|| Front Page Top

#13 phil_b: A fully electric car would do infinite miles per gallon. So what! This is just a brainless MSM pap piece. Where does the electricity come from? How is it generated? And how much does it cost?

The majority of the oil used in the US is used to produce gasoline. For electricity, we use coal, natural gas and nuclear power. If gasoline consumption can be reduced substantially in the US alone, oil producing countries will take substantial hits in term of the number of barrels sold. And that is what this research is all about - reducing oil consumption to stick it to oil producers.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-08-15 17:49|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-15 17:49|| Front Page Top

#14 The majority of the oil used in the US is used to produce gasoline. For electricity, we use coal, natural gas and nuclear power.

Natural gas and oil are semi-fungible with each other; natural gas is used to help turn the heavier crude oils into something usable.

We import natural gas as well, sometimes from the same sources.

We haven't started building a new nuclear plant for the last twenty-five years or so.

Coal production would be harder to expand than many people think; Clinton put a major coal development project out of business in the last month or so of his presidency by turning the place into a national monument.

Then there's wind power, which isn't as environmentally destructive, on average, as many greenies think, but they do think so, SO, there's a strong NIMBY factor there too.

(And there are wind power plants in the desert in CA where they can't even get clearance to build more cables to connect more of their capacity to the statewide grid...)

Building electric cars basically means you're going to trust the same establishment/government that made it much harder to drill here in the US to provide cheap and plentiful electricity.

Posted by Phil 2005-08-15 18:13|| 2005-08-15 18:13|| Front Page Top

#15 Sorry Zhang, but at the margins, all energy sources are fungible (moreorless). Its immaterial how electricity is currently generated. The issue is how the extra electricty is generated. The reality is that electric battery powered cars require between 2 and 5 times as much energy to send the same car the same distance compared to gasoline.

Posted by phil_b 2005-08-15 18:30|| 2005-08-15 18:30|| Front Page Top

#16 Its immaterial how electricity is currently generated.

To me, what kind matters. I want nuclear power. I want solar and wind power. Hell, I want coal if it means that the US is self sufficient. If the demand is there...

Posted by Penguin 2005-08-15 19:03|| 2005-08-15 19:03|| Front Page Top

#17 phil_b: Sorry Zhang, but at the margins, all energy sources are fungible (moreorless).

Actually, they're not fungible in dollar terms. From a cost standpoint, nuclear is the cheapest, followed by coal, natural gas and oil. And that was when oil was $30 per barrel.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-08-15 20:02|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-08-15 20:02|| Front Page Top

#18 Zhang, agreed on nuclear power. There are two ways to look at this. One is the media is peddling snakeoil that will result in substantial increases in imported energy, because electric cars require far more energy (inputs) and almost of the increased electricity demand will be from imported oil and gas. The other way to look at it is that the increased demand for electricity will result in more nuclear, faster. BTW, I am quietly optimistic about some of the passive solar energy projects I am hearing about.

Posted by phil_b 2005-08-15 21:29|| 2005-08-15 21:29|| Front Page Top

23:50 anonymous2u
23:42 Zhang Fei
23:34 Anonymoose
23:17 Zhang Fei
23:14 DMFD
23:12 Glenmore
23:10 Anonymoose
23:09 Jan
23:07 BH
22:56 Frank G
22:51 Thoque Unush3335
22:50 Constitutional Individualist
22:47 bigjim-ky
22:45 Sobiesky
22:44 Constitutional Individualist
22:44 Frank G
22:44 Zhang Fei
22:38 Zhang Fei
22:38 Uleregum Hupains2323
22:36 bigjim-ky
22:34 phil_b
22:30 bigjim-ky
22:29 Captain America
22:27 Frank G