A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Chrysler
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hybids not answer to high mpg



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 14th 05, 04:34 AM
Ken Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hybids not answer to high mpg

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:40:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
> wrote:

>The old steel-fabricated VW Rabbit
>was rated about 950 pounds, carried about 12 gallons fuel, and weighed
>empty about 1850 pounds, if memory serves me correct.


I recall a friend having a diesel Rabbit with a 5-speed back in the
late '70's and he got around 55-60 MPG. Sure, it had pretty bad
acceleration & power, but who cares at that sort of mileage?

I agree with the notion of battery replacement with hybrids. No one
ever talks about that.

I'm curious what does this have to do with a Chrysler newsgroup?

Ads
  #2  
Old March 14th 05, 05:34 AM
SRG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ken Peterson" <zebra @ optonline.net> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:40:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio


>
> I'm curious what does this have to do with a Chrysler newsgroup?
>


Nomen has to blather about something once in a while, I think he likes to
exercise his fingers by typing........



  #3  
Old March 14th 05, 11:20 AM
Ted Mittelstaedt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> Hybrids are heavier than ordinary models. Energy requirements are
> inversely proportional to weight, no matter how tricked out the

powerplants
> are.
>
> A better approach is to go with conventional diesel or gasoline engines
> power and greatly reduce vehicle weight.


Wow, Nomen, did you just discover what the rest of us already knew?

>
> So, how do you trim a car down from 3500 pounds + to 1800? Easy. You use
> light weight materials like aluminum and carbon fibre, using mass
> production manufacturing methods to keep the cost competetive to the cast
> iron and steel lead sleds now the industry standard.
>


See http://www.miniusa.com, vehicle weight is 2500 you can buy them now.

If that's too heavy for you then go here http://www.zapworld.com/ and buy a
Smart Car
as soon as Zap finishes getting regulatory approval to sell them in the US.
Weight is
1500

> Car
> makers, all of them, have a century of shame carried on their shoulders
> when it comes to building fat cars.
>


Well, they needed to build all those fat cars to carry around lard-asses
like yourself.

Ted


  #4  
Old March 14th 05, 01:10 PM
Richard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hybrids are heavier than ordinary models. Energy requirements are
>> inversely proportional to weight, no matter how tricked out the

> powerplants
>> are.
>>
>> A better approach is to go with conventional diesel or gasoline engines
>> power and greatly reduce vehicle weight.

>
> Wow, Nomen, did you just discover what the rest of us already knew?
>
>>
>> So, how do you trim a car down from 3500 pounds + to 1800? Easy. You
>> use
>> light weight materials like aluminum and carbon fibre, using mass
>> production manufacturing methods to keep the cost competetive to the cast
>> iron and steel lead sleds now the industry standard.
>>

>
> See http://www.miniusa.com, vehicle weight is 2500 you can buy them now.
>
> If that's too heavy for you then go here http://www.zapworld.com/ and buy
> a
> Smart Car
> as soon as Zap finishes getting regulatory approval to sell them in the
> US.
> Weight is
> 1500
>
>> Car
>> makers, all of them, have a century of shame carried on their shoulders
>> when it comes to building fat cars.
>>

>
> Well, they needed to build all those fat cars to carry around lard-asses
> like yourself.
>
> Ted
>

If they really cared about better mpg performance we would have switched to
direct fuel injection years ago. Better mpg and better performance.

Richard.


  #5  
Old March 14th 05, 06:26 PM
Dori A Schmetterling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daimler Chrysler heavily into alternative fuels?

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"SRG" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Ken Peterson" <zebra @ optonline.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:40:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio

>
>>
>> I'm curious what does this have to do with a Chrysler newsgroup?
>>

>
> Nomen has to blather about something once in a while, I think he likes to
> exercise his fingers by typing........
>
>
>



  #6  
Old March 14th 05, 08:29 PM
Marc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You're comparing the weight of a very old vehicle to a modern hybrid
vehicle, which is absurd. Compare a the weight of a hybrid Civic with a
non-hybrid Civic, identically equipped, and you might have a case. Or not.
The cars of today have far more equipment and crashworthiness than that old
Rabbit you mention. There are also issues of noise, vibration, harshness
and ride quality that are more difficult at low curb weights.

Hybrids are specifically designed to improve city mileage, not highway
mileage. Batteries are expected to have a useful life of 8+ years and the
manufacturers are not concerned with the car's usefulness beyond the
batteries' warranty period.

Modern diesels are reaching the point now where they're highly viable here
so perhaps we'll start seeing more of them, assuming there are enough buyers
for them.

Applying aircraft standards is a just silly. The priorities of flight are
vastly different than the priorities of propulsion on wheels. Cars also
have to comply with ever more stringent crash standards that aircraft do not
have to comply with. Aircraft do not have to pass collision tests since the
planes won't survive any crash that they're likely to encounter. That
being said, they have been working on ways to reduce fatalities via newer
and more innovative aircraft designs.

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> Hybrids are heavier than ordinary models. Energy requirements are
> inversely proportional to weight, no matter how tricked out the

powerplants
> are.
>
> You will notice that hybrids achieve negligible improvements at constant
> highway speeds. Costwise, they may actually increase $/mile due to
> eventual battery replacements where battery cost >> fuel savings. Due to
> weight considerations, they also suffer in hill climbing and acceleration,
> except for off-the-mark pickup which the electric motor provides boost.
>
> A better approach is to go with conventional diesel or gasoline engines
> power and greatly reduce vehicle weight. Cars are grossly overweight.
> Many aircraft can carry a useful load equal to its weight (fuel, oil,
> payload = useful load). Therefore, if a car is rated for 1150 pounds load
> (passengers + baggage) and carries an additional 180 pounds of fuel (20
> gallons), then its empty weight should be 1330 pounds if the best aircraft
> weight performance standards would apply. Since cars require extra
> equipment such as transmission, differential gear, and extra wheel and
> brake, etc., 1800 pounds provides an allowance for that. Believe it or
> not, some cars in the past came close. The old steel-fabricated VW Rabbit
> was rated about 950 pounds, carried about 12 gallons fuel, and weighed
> empty about 1850 pounds, if memory serves me correct. Therefore, without
> making elaborate weight calculations, I estimate a larger car is doable at
> 1800 pounds with better materials.
>
> So, how do you trim a car down from 3500 pounds + to 1800? Easy. You use
> light weight materials like aluminum and carbon fibre, using mass
> production manufacturing methods to keep the cost competetive to the cast
> iron and steel lead sleds now the industry standard.
>
> A shameful case of squandering material and adding useless weight is the
> ornamentation. A tailgate emblem, for example, is made of pot metal,
> weights more than a pound. Wheel covers weigh a few pounds each and serve
> a contrary function; they add unsprung weight, reducing road holding. Car
> makers, all of them, have a century of shame carried on their shoulders
> when it comes to building fat cars.
>



  #7  
Old March 14th 05, 11:08 PM
HarryS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I just thought it a another loose nut behind the keyboard.

--
HarryS My 2¢
"SRG" > wrote in message
m...
|
| "Ken Peterson" <zebra @ optonline.net> wrote in message
| ...
| > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:40:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
|
| >
| > I'm curious what does this have to do with a Chrysler newsgroup?
| >
|
| Nomen has to blather about something once in a while, I think he likes to
| exercise his fingers by typing........
|
|
|


  #8  
Old March 15th 05, 12:47 AM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Marc wrote:

> Batteries are expected to have a useful life of 8+ years and the
> manufacturers are not concerned with the car's usefulness beyond the
> batteries' warranty period.


So the whole car is supposed to be scrapped after 8 years? Hmmm - for
those whose reason for excitment for the hybrids is "the environment",
did anybody do an impact analysis on the environment of that kind of
entire-vehicle life cycle?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')
  #9  
Old March 15th 05, 05:30 AM
Rod
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:40:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
> wrote:

>Energy requirements are inversely proportional to weight,
>no matter how tricked out the powerplants are.
>

snip

I think you mean to say "Energy requirements are directly
proportional to weight " etc.

Rod
  #10  
Old March 15th 05, 04:39 PM
Old Car
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Don't bet on it. He probably meant inversely proportional.

"Rod" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:40:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
> > wrote:
>
> >Energy requirements are inversely proportional to weight,
> >no matter how tricked out the powerplants are.
> >

> snip
>
> I think you mean to say "Energy requirements are directly
> proportional to weight " etc.
>
> Rod



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Failed Smog Check 1981 Trans AM TheSmogTech Technology 0 January 30th 05 05:16 PM
1988 Olds 88 3800V6 keeps blowing cam sensors, high HC, CO emissions Glen Cooper Technology 9 January 5th 05 05:18 AM
Where to get Official Speed Limit Info [email protected] Driving 40 January 3rd 05 08:10 AM
Integra Emissions Failure Dkakd Honda 13 November 8th 04 10:14 AM
"Oil prices rise to 13-year high, threaten economy" Mike General 0 March 18th 04 10:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.