"Rob" <rdbdriver@blomand.net> wrote:

>
>"Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message > But can we trust
>USDA studies? With the anti-science bent of the current
>> administration, and Big Oil's hands in the administration's pockets, there
>> is a real chance the studies are totally bunk.
>>
>
>Why are you ing political hog wash about this administration. This
>administration has done many things to try to lower are demand for foreign
>oil. They offered a 2000 dollar tax credit for people that buy Hybrids cars,
>I know because I almost got one and the dealer told this to me many times.

I'm sure they did. After all, they want to sell those very expensive
cars to you, now don't they? However, since the IRS has yet to
determine exactly what tax credit is supposed to apply to which hybrid
car, and haven't even determined yet what the word "hybrid" actually
means, I wouldn't exactly rush out and go buy one right yet.

>Plus offered ground breaking help from the Government for people to use
>Biofuels. I have a friend that collects hamburger grease to burn in his
>diesel VW and told me about it plus you may still be able to read about it
>at the biofuel sites. This is only the ones I know of first hand and am sure
>there's more so don't political trash like that. What's this about
>being anti-science bent and big oil in there pockets? You sound like another
>Michael Moore nut. Get real.
>
Wow. Perhaps you should look up what companies our current VP has
major stockholdings in, and which environmental laws they've
deliberately relaxed and which business they most affect.

BTW, the hybrids don't get the gas efficiency the dealers put on the
windows. Those mileages are determined in a lab under controlled
conditions; in actual driving conditions they can be much, much lower,
resulting in the buyer never making back his initial (expensive)
investment in the vehicle.

John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/

 

I bought a Honda Civic Hybrid March, 2005 and my experience with its mileage
is mixed. Once I reached the 10,000 mile mark, the mileage did improve, but
I only get 38 mpg in local driving, and I contribute the low mileage to the
fact I must negotiate a lot of hills which must reduce mileage, since I got
51 mpg driving to Florida from home in the Hudson Valley of NY. I really
don't think that the increased mileage will pay for the increased cost, but
I will get a $2,000 tax rebate back in my tax refund check which I
understand will be going up this year. I obtained breakdown warranty
insurance, which I advise all new owners obtain for hybrids.

At the time the only Hybrid that I could get was one with a standard
remission and I would now counsel against obtaining one, as one must push
the clutch all the way down with the car in gear for the engine to start up
after it has stopped in traffic, which I have found is a real pain to
drive,especially when making left turns across heavy traffic, I would
recommend only obtaining one with an automatic transmission.

I am considering trading my hybrid with standard transmission in 2 years
for one with an automatic transmission.
<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:Qgvyf.9558$or4.1067@newssvr12.news.prodigy.co m...
>
> "Theodore Kaplan" <tkaplan@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:n6vyf.8681$%W1.6796@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> I work for the NY Transit Authority in which large numbers of Ford
>> Escapes
>> are being used as patrol cars. They DO NOT get good milage. Every one
>> of
>> the people I've spoken to say that their mileage is no more than 17 miles
> to
>> the gallon. On the other hand I own a Honda civic hybrid. At least
>> until
> I
>> put decent tires on it, I got about 44mpg. However, the low rolling
>> resistance (read cheap, lightweight) tires do add significantly to the
>> mpg
>> rating. Once I put on a good set of Michelin all seasons, the mileage
>> averages about 38mpg, which while still respectable is far from what is
>> advertised. I'm hoping at this point that once I've reached 10k miles,
>> things will get a bit better.
>
>
> Same son bought a Civic hybrid for his wife, and she got pretty bad
> mileage
> at first. It turned out to be more her driving technique than anything
> else.
> I think she gets up to about 54 mpg now.
>
>
>

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

>
> It's all about image for most of those buyers.
>
> They don't care what it costs for them to have a certain "look" about
> them as they drive down the road.
>
> There's a reason the Toyota Prius has acquired the nickname "Toyota
> Pious".
>

That may be true for some. I am not sure of the percentage- I doubt if
anyone really is.

Hey, I am a gearhead from away back. When I was a teen, anyone who
couldn't work on his own car was the nerd, though we didn't use that
term then.

I love performance cars- I have one in my garage, fortunately it burns
alcohol and runs on a race track.

But, as a retired, fixed income guy I am concerned with the cost of
gasoline. There is no conspiracy involved other than the law of supply
and demand. The ONLY way we are going to put a brake on prices is to
put a brake on demand. Anything we can do to reduce gasoline
consumption will reduce the rate of increase of prices. So looking at
the economics of buying any high milage car today should be considering
the future cost of gasoline.

I will seriously consider replacing my present Neon R/T with a hybrid.
It has 100,000 miles on it and is in good shape, but it will not last
forever. Much as I love twin cams and four valves per cylinder, I
realize that practically speaking it is much better to get my
performance kicks at the race track than on the highway. BTW, my I sold
my last big V8 the year of the first oil embargo, the early seventies.
Still love cars and racing engines, but I don't have to have the
biggest, most powerful engine in town (and use only a small percent of
its capability in normal driving).

 

richard1969@usa.com wrote:
> It's high time to kiss fossil fuel burners goodbye all together.
> Not to be dumping the vehicles in favor of so called hybrids, but
> rather convert them to burn alcohol.
> The farmer could grow enough grain and veggies to not only make cheap
> fuel, but have more than enough to supply every vehicle with ample fuel
> for years.
> Besides, you can distill your own fuel right in your own home.
> Instead of fuel tankers running about the countryside, you'd see more
> grain haulers heading off to the local distillery.
> A servvice station could have it's own distillery right on the
> property.
> Which cuts down on the cost of transportation.
> You could even have your own little co-op thing for the members.
>
> Did you know that OPEC supplies less than 50% of this nation's fuel?
> So why does the minorty dictate what you pay for it?
> It's time to fight back and make OPEC suffer awhile.
> Go wtih alcohol!
>

We have to make sure we don't solve on serious problem by worsening
another. I am concerned that biofuels, ESPECIALLY alcohol, is far worse
for global warming than gasoline. There has to be a better solution. I
am all for alternate fuels, but we need to look at the greenhouse
emissions of using, and more importantly, producing them.

 

Ronnie Dobbs wrote:

> It's not so much the horsepower, but the weight, gearing, and
> aerodynamics (or lack therof) that are inherent in truck-based SUV
> designs. The LS2 engine (400 HP) from GM gets over 25 MPG in a car. A
> buddy of mine has a Dodge Durango with a 318 V8, I think it puts out
> about 220 HP, and gets around 15 MPG.
>

In a sense it is still a horsepower problem. The problem with a large
horsepower engine, especially in a smaller, lighter car is that
ordinarily a small fraction of the horsepower capability of the engine
is being used. Light throttle openings are not efficient- in fact, they
are very inefficient. If it were not for power enrichening, max
efficiency is at wide open throttle. Because of such enrichening, max
efficiency in a normal auto engine is at about two-thirds throttle. A
larger engine than a vehicle needs results in very much reduced throttle
opening with a reduction in efficiency.

 

Ronnie Dobbs wrote:

>> That's debatable. USDA funded studies suggest that if all agricultural
>> land that can be dedicated to production of plants for ethanol, we would
>> only be able to get about 2 percent of the country's total energy. There
>> would still be a need for fossil fuels.
>
>
> But can we trust USDA studies? With the anti-science bent of the
> current administration, and Big Oil's hands in the administration's
> pockets, there is a real chance the studies are totally bunk.
>
I think the key to that is in the study's assumptions. There are a lot
of criteria involved in land that "can be" dedicated. I suspect the
study basically looked at current agricultural land. We have been
reducing our farmland for years as farming gets more efficient.

Secondly, I think ethanol is NOT the most efficient biofuel. They
should have looked at other fuels as well as ethanol.

 

Ronnie Dobbs wrote:
> HLS@nospam.nix wrote:
>
>>> Another culprit is the automatic transmission. I would probably get
>>> around 35-40 MPG if my car had a manual.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, you pointed it out, but are not quite correct. To get excellent
>> mileage you
>> have to drop actual horsepower, decrease weight, improve aerodynamics,
>> etc. The automatic transmission, which USED to be recognized as a
>> mileage culprit is not that any longer. An automatic, properly set up
>> and functioning, can deliver better mileage than you can get with a
>> similarly geared standard.
>
>
> How so? An automatic uses a viscous coupling, and there is always going
> to be slippage. Some slushboxes have lock-up torque converters, which
> help mileage in top gear, but the tranny still slips during acceleration.
>

One reason manual transmissions CAN get better gas milage is that one
can decide on shift points. Economy driving requires lower rpm and
wider throttle openings. Automatics COULD be set up for more fuel
economy, but that is not the way they are currently adjusted. Such
adjustments reduce performance to a degree, so settings are a
compromise. With manual shift you can change the "settings" any time
you want. When gas is high, you can short shift, but you can wind it up
any time you need a little more oomph.

 

John Lansford wrote:

> BTW, the hybrids don't get the gas efficiency the dealers put on the
> windows. Those mileages are determined in a lab under controlled
> conditions; in actual driving conditions they can be much, much lower,
> resulting in the buyer never making back his initial (expensive)
> investment in the vehicle.

Most vehicles don't get the mileage on the window sticker especially in
city driving. One thing that is unrealistic is that the EPA driving
cycle starts with a warmed-up engine.

A friend of mine who bought a Prius when they first came out thinks that
he didn't get the advertised city mileage because the engine starts and
runs until it is warmed up. So on a short trip in the winter the engine
runs the whole time and mileage is no better than any other car. He
traded the Prius in on a hybrid Civic and figures he got the extra money
back on the trade-in. If you are the kind of person who buys new cars
and trades them after 2 or 3 years you may get your money back.

John Mara

 

James Robinson wrote:
>
> There is great debate about the value of alcohol fuels. Studies by a
> professor at Cornell University suggest that it takes more energy to
> grow the corn (fertilizer, plowing, harvesting, etc.) and distill the
> alcohol than you get out of the alcohol itself. Therefore, you really
> don't gain anything that would displace fossil fuels.

If the tractor burned alcohol or bio diesel and the fields were
fertilized with manure and the distillation plant also burned bio fuel
we might be getting somewhere. This would mean putting even more land
into fuel production to get the fuel to make fuel.

John Mara

 

John Mara <johnmara@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

>John Lansford wrote:
>
>> BTW, the hybrids don't get the gas efficiency the dealers put on the
>> windows. Those mileages are determined in a lab under controlled
>> conditions; in actual driving conditions they can be much, much lower,
>> resulting in the buyer never making back his initial (expensive)
>> investment in the vehicle.
>
>Most vehicles don't get the mileage on the window sticker especially in
>city driving. One thing that is unrealistic is that the EPA driving
>cycle starts with a warmed-up engine.

ABCNews ran an article on those mileage numbers on the stickers;
basically no vehicle gets those numbers, and some such as SUV's get
nowhere near them.

>A friend of mine who bought a Prius when they first came out thinks that
>he didn't get the advertised city mileage because the engine starts and
>runs until it is warmed up. So on a short trip in the winter the engine
>runs the whole time and mileage is no better than any other car.

The ones that really make no sense are the SUV's with hybrid
propulsion systems.

> He
>traded the Prius in on a hybrid Civic and figures he got the extra money
>back on the trade-in. If you are the kind of person who buys new cars
>and trades them after 2 or 3 years you may get your money back.
>
ISTM that the people who get rid of the vehicle after just a few years
are the ones that never make back the initial cost on gas savings even
for a hybrid. The news article I mentioned above spoke with several
hybrid owners who were tried that strategy and it didn't work for
them.

John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/

 

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
> "James Robinson" <wascana@212.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is a limit to the amount of hydroelectric power available. You
>> can't dam up every river in the country.
>>
> But you can put in enough wind farms to supply the US's electrical
> needs.

Perhaps the current electrical needs. I wonder what will happen as
fossil fuels become more expensive and scarcer. I suspect that there
will be a shift toward electricity as a replacement for things like home
heating and industrial applications. The demand for electricity will
climb as a result, likely outstripping the supply that could be
generated by wind power alone. However, wind generated power would
reduce the need for alternatives such as nuclear, and would be provided
where it made economic sense.

>> There is great debate about the value of alcohol fuels. Studies by a
>> professor at Cornell University suggest that it takes more energy to
>> grow the corn (fertilizer, plowing, harvesting, etc.) and distill the
>> alcohol than you get out of the alcohol itself. Therefore, you
>> really don't gain anything that would displace fossil fuels.
>
> That is true for any kind of fuel. Even fossil fuels, if you add in
> the total energy that it took to grow the plants what you get out of
> it is much less.

Yes, but the energy is already there in fossil fuels. The only current
cost is the cost of mining or pumping, production and transportation.
The alcohol doesn't exist, nor does the energy contained in it. If the
energy cost of making alcohol is greater than the amount of energy
obtained, as some contend, then it is not a replacement for fossil
fuels. I'm not talking about the solar energy to grow the plants, but
the energy needed to run the farms, make the tractors, and build and
operate the processing plants. The energy for those things alone,
exclusive of the solar energy, is greater than the energy you get from
the alcohol.

In short, you still need about the same amount of fossil fuel to make
the alcohol as you would by using the fossil fuels directly in
transportation vehicles.

> What matters with vehicles is having mobile fuel. Liquid, gas, and
> chemical storage (ie: electric) is are all mobile and are what you got
> to work with. Solid fuel (coal, etc.) isn't mobile unless your
> running a reaction engine which is horribly inefficient, or your on
> rails. Solar isn't feasible, since you need to drive your car in the
> dark at night.

Converting coal into liquid fuels is certainly an alternative. Whether
or not it is done on a large scale will depend on the economics.

 

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
news:wuydndMIGrvLulbenZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@sedona.net:

> "kegler@bowling.net" <nospammers dot nospam dot net> wrote in message
> news:9k7ms11ib01uqbbso7k7l1tl87ut8suqhc@4ax.com...
>> ...as long as you purchased the Prius for it's green advantages and
>> not the mpg you perceive you're saving, I agree. If you purchased
>> the car to save money on gas, you'll need to own the car for 7 years
>> before you realize any savings back.
>>
>>
> We purchased it for both fuel savings and the driving experience; it
> is the second most fun car to drive I've ever had (I still miss my
> Lotus, though).

What's the -fun- part of driving it?
Knowing you're being frugal with gas?
Or that it replaced a 20+ yr old car?


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

"John Lansford" <jlnsford@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ne6ns15htlh341renfejmqigtnlr6ootl8@4ax.com...

> BTW, the hybrids don't get the gas efficiency the dealers put on the
> windows. Those mileages are determined in a lab under controlled
> conditions; in actual driving conditions they can be much, much lower,
> resulting in the buyer never making back his initial (expensive)
> investment in the vehicle.
>
> John Lansford, PE

That's not my personal experience. Our 2002 Prius gets very close to the
estimated mileage in mild weather, even though our driving is mostly in town
and it sees most of its duty in my wife's commute on the hilly terrain to
her job seven miles away. Cold weather takes the expected bite out of the
efficiency, but I've never had a car that got closer to the EPA estimates
than the Prius is doing.

I'm reminded of the classic "mass hysteria" event on the US West Coast in
the days of atmospheric nuclear testing. People were reporting their
windshields pitted as a fallout cloud moved southward... until somebody
pointed out the pitting was also present ahead of the cloud and only
affected older cars. People had just noticed what was there all along. If
the public would remember the EPA estimates are only a benchmark for
regulatory and comparison purposes and take the disclaimer "your mileage may
vary" to heart they would be happier.

Mike

 

"Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:2bOyf.10$mw5.1220@news.uswest.net...

> Secondly, I think ethanol is NOT the most efficient biofuel. They should
> have looked at other fuels as well as ethanol.

I agree with that. Methane has more issues in the deployment end but can be
made from a wider variety of waste products and with less processing.
Ethanol comes only from diverting food for people or feed for livestock. It
just doesn't make sense to burn food to power cars. (Biodiesel has the same
problem - it is diverted foodstuff.)

Mike

 

"Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:b8Oyf.4$9u3.361@news.uswest.net...
>
> In a sense it is still a horsepower problem. The problem with a large
> horsepower engine, especially in a smaller, lighter car is that ordinarily
> a small fraction of the horsepower capability of the engine is being used.
> Light throttle openings are not efficient- in fact, they are very
> inefficient. If it were not for power enrichening, max efficiency is at
> wide open throttle. Because of such enrichening, max efficiency in a
> normal auto engine is at about two-thirds throttle. A larger engine than
> a vehicle needs results in very much reduced throttle opening with a
> reduction in efficiency.

Exactly so - that nasty Second Law of Thermodynamics (in the form of the
Carnot ratio) again.

Mike