On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:31:15 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

>"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>news:sHJnf.36502$yw3.821854@weber.videotron.net.. .
>> I don't disagree with you. However, a more modest 4 banger Accord would
>> very easilly achieve acceptable performance in a hybrid with better
>> mileage numbers.
>
>I think so, too. Mating a small electric system to a V6 is not really part
>of the path forward in hybridization. In fact, I think it's silly. But as
>long as it sells, I suppose it is a success.
>
>Mike

I really wonder how much better a 4 would be IF one drives the V6
conservatively. With the ability to switch to three cylinders and
shut down at idle, I bet that you would get very close to the same mpg
if you drive both cars gently. OTOH, if you can't control your right
foot, the V6 will cost more at the pump. No free lunch.

I am glad that Honda is experimenting with performance hybrids. I
kind of wish they would put it on the Civic Si/RSX-S class of cars. I
think that would be a better application.

 

"Gordon McGrew" <gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:taevp1d40rvd8o4bjsf3btaf34n0gggkdv@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:31:15 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
> <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>
>>"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>news:sHJnf.36502$yw3.821854@weber.videotron.net. ..
>>> I don't disagree with you. However, a more modest 4 banger Accord would
>>> very easilly achieve acceptable performance in a hybrid with better
>>> mileage numbers.
>>
>>I think so, too. Mating a small electric system to a V6 is not really part
>>of the path forward in hybridization. In fact, I think it's silly. But as
>>long as it sells, I suppose it is a success.
>>
>>Mike
>
> I really wonder how much better a 4 would be IF one drives the V6
> conservatively. With the ability to switch to three cylinders and
> shut down at idle, I bet that you would get very close to the same mpg
> if you drive both cars gently. OTOH, if you can't control your right
> foot, the V6 will cost more at the pump. No free lunch.
>
> I am glad that Honda is experimenting with performance hybrids. I
> kind of wish they would put it on the Civic Si/RSX-S class of cars. I
> think that would be a better application.
>
>
I go along with you. The cylinder shutdown is undoubtedly a plus, since much
of the penalty of a larger engine comes from too little manifold pressure
most of the time.

Hybrids really won't get respect until they provide better performance than
conventional power trains. The sooner the better, I say.

Mike

 

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
newsY2dnYA6B9R9oj3enZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@sedona.net.. .
> "Gordon McGrew" <gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:taevp1d40rvd8o4bjsf3btaf34n0gggkdv@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:31:15 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
>> <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:sHJnf.36502$yw3.821854@weber.videotron.net ...
>>>> I don't disagree with you. However, a more modest 4 banger Accord
>>>> would
>>>> very easilly achieve acceptable performance in a hybrid with better
>>>> mileage numbers.
>>>
>>>I think so, too. Mating a small electric system to a V6 is not really
>>>part
>>>of the path forward in hybridization. In fact, I think it's silly. But as
>>>long as it sells, I suppose it is a success.
>>>
>>>Mike
>>
>> I really wonder how much better a 4 would be IF one drives the V6
>> conservatively. With the ability to switch to three cylinders and
>> shut down at idle, I bet that you would get very close to the same mpg
>> if you drive both cars gently. OTOH, if you can't control your right
>> foot, the V6 will cost more at the pump. No free lunch.
>>
>> I am glad that Honda is experimenting with performance hybrids. I
>> kind of wish they would put it on the Civic Si/RSX-S class of cars. I
>> think that would be a better application.
>>
>>
> I go along with you. The cylinder shutdown is undoubtedly a plus, since
> much of the penalty of a larger engine comes from too little manifold
> pressure most of the time.
>
> Hybrids really won't get respect until they provide better performance
> than conventional power trains. The sooner the better, I say.
>
> Mike
Gee, you'd think that Honda would think of that! Whoops, sorry, they did.
The Accord V6 Hybrid performs BETTER than the Accord V6 ICE. Look it up.
Honda also has an experimental hydrogen car being tested by a family in
California and Honda is bankrolling California in setting up a string of
hydrogen stations for infrastructure.

None of this stuff happens overnight, folks. It takes long term planning
and sometimes waiting for the technology to catch up with the concepts.
Hydrogen cars are going to be so damn quite that they should furnish the DVD
sound track from "The Fast and the Furious" for the performance models.


--
Kent Finnell
From the Music City USA

 

Kent Finnell wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:CEJnf.36500$yw3.820573@weber.videotron.net...
>
>>High Tech Misfit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>How, exactly, is the V6 Honda Accord Hybrid misguided?
>>>>
>>>>Forgive me for believing that the objective of hybrids is to save energy.
>>>>The Hybrid makes no (or very little) gain in actual gas economy.
>>>
>>>
>>>The only logical reason to buy a hybrid is reduced emissions. It is for
>>>the environmentalists.
>>
>>And since the Honda Accord Hybrid gets poor gas mileage, it fails at
>>reduced emissions.
>
>
> Poor gas mileage? 38 mpg is poor gas mileage? And if it fails at reduced
> emissions, how does it meet muster to be on sale in California?

Yes it's poor mileage. A 4 cyl. solution would do even better. That's
the point of hybrid: reduce consumption. Not make minor muscle cars.


>
>
>>I don't agree that fuel economy is for "environmentalists". Oil is a
>>dwindling source that when used pollutes the air. Everyone should try to
>>use less. First step, is get the right sized car for your needs.
>
>
> And if your needs exceed a Civic LX 4 door?

Hybrid can be scaled up as much as needed for the need. There is no
need for a hybrid passenger sedan to have more than a 4 cyl. engine.
The electric motors will provide the boost for the acceleration and cyl
is more than enough for cruise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121600098.html
refers



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

Kent Finnell wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:sHJnf.36502$yw3.821854@weber.videotron.net...
>
>>Michael Pardee wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:swXmf.2406$O27.75284@wagner.videotron.net. ..
>>>
>>>
>>>>Kent Finnell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>news:NHqlf.310$rq2.161280@wagner.videotron.ne t...
>>>>>
>>>>>How, exactly, is the V6 Honda Accord Hybrid misguided?
>>>>
>>>>Forgive me for believing that the objective of hybrids is to save energy.
>>>>The Hybrid makes no (or very little) gain in actual gas economy.
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Alan
>>>
>>>
>>>That's okay - it is a common error. The objective of hybrids is to
>>>correct a huge design compromise we have been forced into for a century:
>>>the use of the same power source for low speeds, acceleration and high
>>>speeds. Whenever auto makers increase engine power in cars (as they did
>>>in the '70s and are currently doing) the flub becomes even more glaring -
>>>we have 300 hp engines pulling 3000 lb cars around. Not a great concept.
>>>
>>>Hybridization effectively separates engine power from acceleration
>>>performance and frees the engine from stupid things like low speed
>>>operation
>>
>><snipped>
>>
>>I don't disagree with you. However, a more modest 4 banger Accord would
>>very easilly achieve acceptable performance in a hybrid with better
>>mileage numbers.
>
>
> Hence the 4 cylinder Civic Hybrid ... sheesh, I'll bet you're going to carp
> about that too. 49/51 mpg with performance on a par with the NA 1.8 4
> cylinder.

A Civic is too small for a lot of people, including me. An Accord is
"just right" (for me and many people) and 4 cyl/manual is fine for me
now, so why would I need a 6 cyl. hybrid?

The civic could have been 3 cyl or smaller displacement. The idea is to
get accleration from the electric+gas side and cruise+recharge from the
gasoline side. But, people these days seem to be overly concerned with
strong acceleration. It's thrilling, but unneeded.

>
> Honda just didn't slap the 3.0 liter V6 into the nearest Accord and throw in
> the electric motor for grins and giggles. It is a system, a system that
> includes the shut down of 3 of the cylinders under the certain conditions,
> effectively becoming a 3 cylinder. The Civic has a 1.3 liter 4. Hummm, 1.5
> 3 cylinder, 1.3 4 cylinder.

And they could have achieved better mileage with a 4 banger. What they
wanted to achieve was something with a hybrid label and Jr. Muscle car
acceleration.

I have a 4 cyl. accord (manual). It drives very fast and has good but
not great acceleration. So why would you need a 6 cyl. in a hybrid.
You don't.

3 cyl shut down is good, however you are still dragging around a heavier
engine.


>
> The Accord is a larger, heavier car that some people need. Of course you
> might want to opt for a Yugo.

Irrelvant. For a familly of 3, an Accord is a sensible solution. But
it does not need a 6 cyl. engine.

>
> Neither of the 4 - 6 passenger Hondas is a failure. Different specs for
> different markets, yes but not failures. At least neither of them has had a
> massive recall because the gas engines shut down at speed like the Toyota
> hybrid. How many were there ... 75,000 or so?

Irrelevant.
>
> Then there's always that other line of Hondas ... motorcycles.

Irrelvant.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:8_zof.25211$Iq3.357710@wagner.videotron.net.. .
> Kent Finnell wrote:
>
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:CEJnf.36500$yw3.820573@weber.videotron.net...
>>
>>>High Tech Misfit wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>How, exactly, is the V6 Honda Accord Hybrid misguided?
>>>>>
>>>>>Forgive me for believing that the objective of hybrids is to save
>>>>>energy. The Hybrid makes no (or very little) gain in actual gas
>>>>>economy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The only logical reason to buy a hybrid is reduced emissions. It is for
>>>>the environmentalists.
>>>
>>>And since the Honda Accord Hybrid gets poor gas mileage, it fails at
>>>reduced emissions.
>>
>>
>> Poor gas mileage? 38 mpg is poor gas mileage? And if it fails at
>> reduced emissions, how does it meet muster to be on sale in California?
>
> Yes it's poor mileage. A 4 cyl. solution would do even better. That's
> the point of hybrid: reduce consumption. Not make minor muscle cars.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>I don't agree that fuel economy is for "environmentalists". Oil is a
>>>dwindling source that when used pollutes the air. Everyone should try to
>>>use less. First step, is get the right sized car for your needs.
>>
>>
>> And if your needs exceed a Civic LX 4 door?
>
> Hybrid can be scaled up as much as needed for the need. There is no need
> for a hybrid passenger sedan to have more than a 4 cyl. engine. The
> electric motors will provide the boost for the acceleration and cyl is
> more than enough for cruise.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121600098.html
> refers
>
>
I have to tell you, Alan, but this is America. Need is NOT the criteria,
want is. You get what you want, your perceived need. Others can do the
same. A 4 cyl. Accord may fit your needs/wants. But if a fellow has a wife
and two high school linebackers he needs to transport, he may honestly need
the V6. You don't get to dictate his needs or mine or any of the other 280
million Americans. Frustrating, isn't it?

Companies build to the desires of their customers. Sometimes that gets them
caught in a crack. Witness the current SUV bust. Now if Honda comes up
with a Pilot V6 Hybrid, some of those current and former SUV owners will
flock to it.

Personally I've never needed or wanted a SUV or PU and an Accord coupe or
sedan is probably as large as I'd go, L4 or V6, my choice, NOT your dictate.
Right now I'd like a 2006 Civic Si and screw whatever you think I need.


--
Kent Finnell
From the Music City USA

 

Kent Finnell wrote:

>
> I have to tell you, Alan, but this is America. Need is NOT the criteria,
> want is. You get what you want, your perceived need. Others can do the
> same. A 4 cyl. Accord may fit your needs/wants. But if a fellow has a wife
> and two high school linebackers he needs to transport, he may honestly need
> the V6. You don't get to dictate his needs or mine or any of the other 280
> million Americans. Frustrating, isn't it?

Where did I 'dictate' anything? I simply would have preferred that
Honda take the 4 cyl. approach with the hybrid and really try to get the
most out of the technology at the mpg level. Instead they are catering
to the performance "want". This makes a good business decision, but a
poor objective decision. What the world needs is much less oil consumption.

Fratration: you Americans in particular are gobbling up 1/4 of the
world's non-renewable oil resources to feed your petty "wants". There
is a bigger picture, but most Americans are blithely unwilling to face
up to it. Truly a large part of that 1/4 goes to legitimate needs. But
driving to a high rise office job in a large SUV is simple waste. If
gasoline were and endless resource, nobody would care. But that's not
the case, is it?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/...ton_sha_of_tot

You had a great warning in the 70's ... and promptly forgot it.

You've killed over 2000 of your own soldiers so far, not to mention
those of other nations, civilian contractors, Iraqi civilians and so on.

All in the name of oil security. If the US would make the effort to
reduce consumption and promote true innovation in energy use with the
money wasted in an unwinnable Iraq, the US and the world would benefit
immensely. And those young men and women would have been spared an
early death would be able to enjoy the "American Dream" as much as you
get to do it.

Please remember when you tank up that American soldiers are dying for
your privilege to do so. Seems to be a deadly shame to waste a single drop.

>
> Companies build to the desires of their customers. Sometimes that gets them
> caught in a crack. Witness the current SUV bust. Now if Honda comes up
> with a Pilot V6 Hybrid, some of those current and former SUV owners will
> flock to it.
>
> Personally I've never needed or wanted a SUV or PU and an Accord coupe or
> sedan is probably as large as I'd go, L4 or V6, my choice, NOT your dictate.
> Right now I'd like a 2006 Civic Si and screw whatever you think I need.

It's not what "anyone" wants its what the world needs. On that note,
the Chinese economy is growing in huge leaps and bounds. And they too
have discovered the joy of the automobile... it's really going to get
much worse before it gets even slightly better.

Given the American trade deficit, personal debt, boomers retiring and
selling off over valuated homes, huge government debt and the dwindling
purchassing power of the US dollar, Americans at the individual level
will need to wake up or have a very rude awakening.

By the way, on a percap basis we are no better than Americans in oil
consumption. OTOH, we are overwhelmingly influenced by American
lifestyle (eg: big fast cars) and products (GM, Ford, Chrysler). OTOOH,
we have proven oil reserves second only to Saudi Arabia. But that's
great, we sell most of it to the US and further increase our trade
surplus with the US.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

Alan Browne wrote:
> Kent Finnell wrote:
>
>>
>> I have to tell you, Alan, but this is America. Need is NOT the
>> criteria, want is. You get what you want, your perceived need.
>> Others can do the same. A 4 cyl. Accord may fit your needs/wants.
>> But if a fellow has a wife and two high school linebackers he needs to
>> transport, he may honestly need the V6. You don't get to dictate his
>> needs or mine or any of the other 280 million Americans. Frustrating,
>> isn't it?
>
> Where did I 'dictate' anything? I simply would have preferred that
> Honda take the 4 cyl. approach with the hybrid and really try to get the
> most out of the technology at the mpg level. Instead they are catering
> to the performance "want". This makes a good business decision, but a
> poor objective decision. What the world needs is much less oil
> consumption.

theyre doing both. theres the civic hybrid, and the insight for economy,
and the accord hybrid for their little experiment into performance
applications. i dont notice people flocking to the accord, and i dont
notice any accords able to go in the carpool lane on the freeway.
>
> Fratration: you Americans in particular are gobbling up 1/4 of the
> world's non-renewable oil resources to feed your petty "wants". There
> is a bigger picture, but most Americans are blithely unwilling to face
> up to it. Truly a large part of that 1/4 goes to legitimate needs. But
> driving to a high rise office job in a large SUV is simple waste. If
> gasoline were and endless resource, nobody would care. But that's not
> the case, is it?
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/...ton_sha_of_tot

and the only time people bitch or DO anything is when gas is $3/gal. my
primary commuting vehicle is one of these:

http://www.suzuki-gb.co.uk/model.asp?id=43

dont think i ever put more than $8/week into the tank, going to work and
running errands.

before that, i had two of these:

http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mchonda/helix.html

and before that ive had at least one scooter going back to 1987.
>
> You had a great warning in the 70's ... and promptly forgot it.
>
> You've killed over 2000 of your own soldiers so far, not to mention
> those of other nations, civilian contractors, Iraqi civilians and so on.

i feel NO pity toward the merc^H^H^H "contractors". as for the soldiers?
i wonder how many would have signed up if theyd known our puppet in
chief was going to lead them to war.

 

SoCalMike wrote:

> i feel NO pity toward the merc^H^H^H "contractors". as for the soldiers?
> i wonder how many would have signed up if theyd known our puppet in
> chief was going to lead them to war.

Most of the contractors there are doing fairly mundane things like
driving trucks and running kitchens and laundry's. Nothing mercenary
about it, it frees soldiers up to soldier.

When you enlist to arms, you have to expect to be thrust in harms way.
OTOH, when you're elected to the most powerful post in the US, you're
not supposed to squander your nation's youth where other solutions would
do much better.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

Alan Browne wrote:
> SoCalMike wrote:
>
>> i feel NO pity toward the merc^H^H^H "contractors". as for the
>> soldiers? i wonder how many would have signed up if theyd known our
>> puppet in chief was going to lead them to war.
>
> Most of the contractors there are doing fairly mundane things like
> driving trucks and running kitchens and laundry's. Nothing mercenary
> about it, it frees soldiers up to soldier.

true, and they get paid DAMN good money to do it. up to $100k/yr or
more, tax free. but they know their laundry or kitchen can be blown up
at a moments notice, or they could be kidnapped and have their heads
lopped off on al jazeera TV.
>
> When you enlist to arms, you have to expect to be thrust in harms way.
> OTOH, when you're elected to the most powerful post in the US, you're
> not supposed to squander your nation's youth where other solutions would
> do much better.

especially since he did everything he could to not serve himself. same
with chaney and rumsfeld as well. chickenhawks- the whole lot of em.