Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Drove a Hybrid. Impressed?


  • Please log in to reply
285 replies to this topic

#51 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,664 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 22 August 2014 - 03:35

The Mondeo is best at around 80 kph, although for all I know it might be better at a constant 60 kph. I'll check the tires when I get it back, typically only the base spec tire is low RR



Advertisement

#52 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,910 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 23 August 2014 - 01:17

That is not a necessary characteristic of hybrids. The ICE is optimised over a narrow range but as a result has a higher thermal efficiency which should result in better highway economy. Prius has peak efficiency at about 26 kW outpout which would correspond to well over 100 km/hr on level road.  As a result, at a steady 120 kph I would bet a Prius uses half the fuel of your Landcruiser.

Dont bet too much though. All the stories I hear are about 30mpg, less than a 4 litre Ford. Less than the Corrolla that a good bit of the Prius is! Poor little engine is carting around 1/4 ton of batterys and trying to charge them too. The electric motor side runs out of puff at about 80k.

They do look rather silly on the road, all doing 80-90 k wobbling on the truck shaped ruts. But they are Green,,, as green as a toxic waste dump! The hybrid Camrys do not look quite as wallowy, but dont go any faster.

If I drove the Cruiser at 80 I would probably get 20% more too. And go to sleep every hour!



#53 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,748 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 23 August 2014 - 09:12

What does the Cruiser get at 100 kph? The Prius does 4 L/100km (70 mpg).

 

Of course the Prius is not designed as a highway car, but you did claim that hybrids die above 80 kph.



#54 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,910 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 24 August 2014 - 01:07

Quite simple, I never drive at 100k! I travel to get places.

At 110-120k it is over 800k on a stop. Around 130 litres. Not much worse than a similar diesel and diesel costs more.

Mate has just bought a 2014 200 diesel which appears to use less fuel around town and about the same as his 100 4500 petrol highway.

Now he is goint to terrorise the highways with a caravan where he expects it too be better. For 65k changeover it would need to be! Though those V8 diesels have a bad reliability rep.

Oh and 70 mpg @ 100k for the Prius?   The official figures are far worse, and they are usually better than real road figures then. 

The Prius economy is around town. Though then are 'officially' worse than a diesel Focus and a couple of other Euro diesel toys. None of which I ever want to own.


Edited by Lee Nicolle, 24 August 2014 - 01:11.


#55 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,664 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 24 August 2014 - 01:39

I posted actual measured Prius fuel economy (US gallons) earlier. 



#56 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,748 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 24 August 2014 - 04:06

So, from Greg's source, at 110 kph the Prius is getting 55 mpg (US) or 4.27 L/100km or 66 mpg (imp). This is the steady 110 kph consumption. If you prefer, the ADR highway number is 3.7 L/100km.

 

Your Cruiser doing 800k on 130 litres comes to 130/8 = 16.25 L/100km. About 4 times the consumption of the Prius. Of course the steady 110k consumption would be better than that. ADR highway number is 10.9

 

It doesn't really matter how you look at it, the Prius uses about 1/3 the fuel of the Landcruiser on the highway.



#57 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 1,235 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 August 2014 - 04:45

The US EPA highway rating for a 2014 Prius is 48mpg, and the city rating is 50mpg.



#58 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,748 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 24 August 2014 - 05:18

http://www.fuelecono...=34327&id=34489



#59 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,664 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 24 August 2014 - 06:40

My next car's a diesel AWD Territory, some people are swearing to high 9s or 10 l/100km. Pretty good for a 2.2 ton car.

 

Here's a vaguely relevant war story. In about 1995 on Falcon we introduced  a feature called lean cruise. This was an adaptive program that ran if the EEC thought you were cruising on the freeway. It'd lean out the mixture, then optimise the spark, then try again with the mixture, and so on. You could see instantaneous fuel consumptions of the order of 8 or better, at 100 kph.

 

Obviously this had no effect on the claimed fuel consumptions, due to the silly way they were tested, but it was a real world benefit (one advantage of having your calibration guys driving the test vehicle, they actually care about tricky to implement strategies).

 

However somehow word got to the guvmint, and they were a bit narked by the NOx emissions, so we don't play that game any more.



Advertisement

#60 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,910 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 24 August 2014 - 07:55

So, from Greg's source, at 110 kph the Prius is getting 55 mpg (US) or 4.27 L/100km or 66 mpg (imp). This is the steady 110 kph consumption. If you prefer, the ADR highway number is 3.7 L/100km.

 

Your Cruiser doing 800k on 130 litres comes to 130/8 = 16.25 L/100km. About 4 times the consumption of the Prius. Of course the steady 110k consumption would be better than that. ADR highway number is 10.9

 

It doesn't really matter how you look at it, the Prius uses about 1/3 the fuel of the Landcruiser on the highway.

And is twice as much usefull vehicle. It has a load capacity, will tow heavy loads, you can sleep in it with comfort and it will go on any road or track. The Prius is a slow ugly heavy city econobox that as I said before is as green a a toxic waste dump.

Actually Top Gear summed it up really well. drive the Prius very fast!!!  Shadow it with a V8 Bimmer which used a deal less fuel.



#61 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,748 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 24 August 2014 - 11:35

Here's a vaguely relevant war story. In about 1995 on Falcon we introduced  a feature called lean cruise. This was an adaptive program that ran if the EEC thought you were cruising on the freeway. It'd lean out the mixture, then optimise the spark, then try again with the mixture, and so on. You could see instantaneous fuel consumptions of the order of 8 or better, at 100 kph.

Holden did the same thing although not as effectively, they didn't advance the spark enough for one thing.



#62 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 7,525 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 24 August 2014 - 15:22

And is twice as much usefull vehicle. It has a load capacity, will tow heavy loads, you can sleep in it with comfort and it will go on any road or track. The Prius is a slow ugly heavy city econobox that as I said before is as green a a toxic waste dump.

Actually Top Gear summed it up really well. drive the Prius very fast!!!  Shadow it with a V8 Bimmer which used a deal less fuel.

No question the Prius is evil incarnate in stamped sheetmetal.



#63 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 19,591 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 24 August 2014 - 19:23

I've heard rumors the Prius is actually produced in Kenya and they may be Muslim.

#64 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 7,525 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 25 August 2014 - 00:30

I always just assumed as much. Clearly this is the product of freedom-hating terrorists intending to stop the rest of us from hauling bushels of firewood up our steep muddy driveways so we freeze to death in the winter.

 

First the Prius, next Sharia.



#65 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,748 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 25 August 2014 - 02:03

Hybrids don't have to be boring. 0-60 mph in 4.5 sec, 112 mpg (US), 23 miles electric range.

 

http://www.gizmag.co...to-video/32255/

 

Production will be 100% white-supremacist, fundamentalist Christian.

 

EDIT. 0-60 = 3.8 sec apparently.


Edited by gruntguru, 25 August 2014 - 05:11.


#66 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,664 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 25 August 2014 - 03:42

Even Jezza liked it. 



#67 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 19,591 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 25 August 2014 - 03:45

What'd really be green are cars that last a million miles, but they'd probably be heavy and expensive initially and they'd put the people that made them out of work. So, next best thing, the longer you can keep that root beer brown eighties Buick rolling, the more green street cred one should get.

#68 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,664 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 25 August 2014 - 04:21

You get into the murky accounting of lifetime resource usage. Roughly speaking you need to replace a car every 10 years just to keep up with improvement in fuel efficiency, goes one argument. I'm not convinced by that one, tho the crude numbers do stack up. Roughly the energy content of a car is about one year of fuel usage, YoY improvement in fuel consumption is 1% (actually better than that I think),  so after 10 years scrap the beater and buy a newie. Financially it doesn't make sense, a 10 yo car has 5 years in it at least, so especially for a low mileage driver it makes better financial sense to run an old one into the round. That implies that there are costs not represented in this model.



#69 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,748 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 25 August 2014 - 04:48

Maybe that depends on whether you are trying to minimise owner cost or resources cost.



#70 scolbourne

scolbourne
  • Member

  • 515 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 25 August 2014 - 05:04

Hybrids don't have to be boring. 0-60 mph in 4.5 sec, 112 mpg (US), 23 miles electric range.

 

http://www.gizmag.co...to-video/32255/

 

Production will be 100% white-supremacist, fundamentalist Christian.

This is the type of quoted mpg  figure I really hate. After the battery has run flat, has anyone an idea of what the true mpg figure would be ? I expect it is nearer to 15mg than 112mpg.

Unless you know the complete testing cycle , it is meaningless. We need a new test standard for hybrids that gives as one of the results the average maintained mpg for a long trip after the battery power has gone.

 

Otherwise we will get manufacturers simply designing cars around the current artificial testing standards and quoting 112mpg when it would have been just as easy to achieve 200mpg or infinite with a slightly bigger battery.



#71 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,748 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 25 August 2014 - 05:20

This is the type of quoted mpg  figure I really hate. After the battery has run flat, has anyone an idea of what the true mpg figure would be ? I expect it is nearer to 15mg than 112mpg.

24 mpg during the "Car and Driver" test so probably 30 mpg or better driven normally.

 

Of course that number ignores the ability of plug-in hybrids to save serious amounts of fuel and money when used for short trips.

 

I acknowledge that the "e" should never be omitted when quoting 112 MPGe.

 

http://www.fuelecono...HEV-label.shtml



#72 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,910 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 25 August 2014 - 08:16

Ah, the plug in. Oh so economical,,, until your electricity bill comes in!

And oh so green,, unless you live near a power station!



#73 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,910 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 25 August 2014 - 08:20

No question the Prius is evil incarnate in stamped sheetmetal.

Look at the American Hot Rod you tube 'Roadkill' episode on a Prius. The ran over it with a tank! That was after the engine blew up when having a Sunday drive on a racetrack.

An English website or TV program also ran one over with a tank also.



#74 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,748 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 25 August 2014 - 09:26

Ah, the plug in. Oh so economical,,, until your electricity bill comes in!

And oh so green,, unless you live near a power station!

The electricity cost for EV's is minuscule compared to petrol. Battery replacement cost is far greater (but combined still cheaper than petrol).

 

EV's are lower CO2 than petrol cars - even if the electricity is 100% from coal. Of course there are none of the tailpipe nasties and power stations aren't located in the city.



#75 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,748 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 25 August 2014 - 09:28

Look at the American Hot Rod you tube 'Roadkill' episode on a Prius. The ran over it with a tank! That was after the engine blew up when having a Sunday drive on a racetrack.

An English website or TV program also ran one over with a tank also.

Well - yes - that does prove something I guess. Not in your favour unfortunately.



#76 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,750 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 25 August 2014 - 09:48

Dimi PAPADOPOULOS @f1enigma

Thats how things should be! Buses with F1 technology take to streets in Aberdeen fw.to/0EfhjOP

Love when people repeat bullshit so much that they start to believe it.

Edited by saudoso, 25 August 2014 - 09:48.


#77 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,750 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 25 August 2014 - 09:50

The electricity cost for EV's is minuscule compared to petrol. Battery replacement cost is far greater (but combined still cheaper than petrol).

 

EV's are lower CO2 than petrol cars - even if the electricity is 100% from coal. Of course there are none of the tailpipe nasties and power stations aren't located in the city.

I'd love to see numbers! Alongside real life emission values to generate said energy.



#78 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,748 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 25 August 2014 - 11:52

Coal fired electricity 1.0 - 1.1 kg CO2/kW.hr. http://www.originene...es/hep_sm10.pdf

 

Nissan Leaf approx 16 kW.hr/100km. = 16 kg CO2/kW.hr when coal fired.

Nissan Tiida 18 kg CO2/100km

Nissan Maxima 22.6 kg CO2/100km

 

Its closer than I thought but 100% coal fired electricity is worst case.

 

Privately owned Solar PV is now competitive with electricity from the utilities and continues to fall in price. Carbon and energy payback for solar panels is currently 2 - 3 years and falling. Life of panels is 25+ years.


Edited by gruntguru, 25 August 2014 - 23:51.


#79 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,750 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 25 August 2014 - 14:07

And for the batteries?

Advertisement

#80 CaptnMark

CaptnMark
  • Member

  • 1,026 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 25 August 2014 - 16:25

I (in Europe) tested the Auris, the hatchback slightly smaller than Prius. What I don't like about it is a weak electric engine. IMO, the power of ICE and electric engine should be reversed... Actually, what I'd really want is an AWD crossover version, somewhere between hatchback and station wagon length, but having the motor from the Yaris added for the rear wheels.



#81 Slumberer

Slumberer
  • Member

  • 133 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 25 August 2014 - 19:36

Peugeot 3008 or Volvo V60 hybrid? AWD hybrids. Probably a bit small in the US but in the UK acceptable(ish).

I was lent a Nissan Leaf while my gas-guzzling Nissan Navara (actualy 33mpg which considering the car and the fact that I drive it like I stole it, isn't bad) and it was pretty good.

OK it's electric only, but it was perfectly acceptable as a town car. If you took it out of eco-mode it could spin its tyres from the lights.

The 100 mile range was the main downside, but for a day to day city car it would make a lot of sense.

It was certainly better than the hateful Micras that they normally lend me.



#82 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,772 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 25 August 2014 - 21:28

Look at the American Hot Rod you tube 'Roadkill' episode on a Prius. The ran over it with a tank! That was after the engine blew up when having a Sunday drive on a racetrack.

An English website or TV program also ran one over with a tank also.

 

I've never understood the adolescent resentment of all forms of technology -- but especially green technology -- among the hot rodding crowd.

 

The sport used to be all about technical advance. But then it used to be made up of young people building stuff, not old fat guys in gold chains. 



#83 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 7,525 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 25 August 2014 - 23:31

Coal fired electricity 1.0 - 1.1 kg CO2/kW.hr. http://www.google.co....73612305,d.c2E

 

Nissan Leaf approx 16 kW.hr/100km. = 16 kg CO2/kW.hr when coal fired.

Nissan Tiida 18 kg CO2/100km

Nissan Maxima 22.6 kg CO2/100km

 

Its closer than I thought but 100% coal fired electricity is worst case.

 

Privately owned Solar PV is now competitive with electricity from the utilities and continues to fall in price. Carbon and energy payback for solar panels is currently 2 - 3 years and falling. Life of panels is 25+ years.

That's at the power plant, it doesn't account for distribution losses and inefficiencies in the powertrain/storage. The information I've found has indicated that the benefit of electric drive to CO2 emissions is very much dependent on production method, and in many worst cases it compares very poorly to ICE emissions.



#84 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,748 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 25 August 2014 - 23:48

The numbers I posted account for all those factors.

 

Perhaps you could share this "information you have found"?



#85 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,664 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 25 August 2014 - 23:49

Wiki has some links to some serious studies on this. Worst case I remember is Germany where you'd be using brown coal to electricity to the BEV. Even then there isn't much in it CO2 wise if that is your concern.

 

Personally, i don't think large batteried hybrids are a great idea in the long term , but I suspect small battery hybrids, with regen and a few other tricks,  may prove to be a sensible way forward for many cars. That being said the Prius was a stunning piece of technology when it came out and a real leap of faith by Toyota. Their ongoing development of it has also been exemplary. They may be approaching the limitations of its architecture now.



#86 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,664 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 25 August 2014 - 23:53

https://en.wikipedia...e_gas_emissions



#87 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,748 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 26 August 2014 - 00:07

Nice link Greg. One quote I liked

 

"The study found that there are no regions in the U.S. where plug-in electric cars will have higher greenhouse gas emissions than the average new compact gasoline engine automobile, and the area with the dirtiest power supply produces CO2 emissions equivalent to a gasoline-powered car rated at 33 mpg-US (7.1 L/100 km)."



#88 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 7,525 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 26 August 2014 - 00:36

The numbers I posted account for all those factors.

 

Perhaps you could share this "information you have found"?

Yeah, I'm just not home now. But your source explicitly states that the level of CO2 per kWh is at the plant.



#89 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,932 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 26 August 2014 - 01:00

Privately owned Solar PV is now competitive with electricity from the utilities and continues to fall in price. Carbon and energy payback for solar panels is currently 2 - 3 years and falling. Life of panels is 25+ years.

 

Not if our current government has its way!



#90 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,932 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 26 August 2014 - 01:02

Yeah, I'm just not home now. But your source explicitly states that the level of CO2 per kWh is at the plant.

 

Would you do the same for petrol powered vehicles too? ie Include all transport emissions getting the fuel to the station and any fugitive emissions from extraction to sitting in the fuel tank?



#91 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,748 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 26 August 2014 - 01:08

Yeah, I'm just not home now. But your source explicitly states that the level of CO2 per kWh is at the plant.

Transmission and distribution losses average 6 - 7%.



#92 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,748 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 26 August 2014 - 01:15

Not if our current government has its way!

True, although when I installed 5.5 kW of PV on my roof last year, I was surprised at how competitive the price was - even without rebate - about $10k. In Brisbane that system generates an average of 20+ kW.hr per day.  Thats 30,000+ km per year in a Nissan Leaf.

 

30,000 km in an econobox @ 7L/100km = 2,100 litres @ $1.50/L = $3,150 per year.


Edited by gruntguru, 26 August 2014 - 04:13.


#93 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,664 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 26 August 2014 - 01:32

Would you do the same for petrol powered vehicles too? ie Include all transport emissions getting the fuel to the station and any fugitive emissions from extraction to sitting in the fuel tank?

it's about 17%



#94 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,748 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 26 August 2014 - 04:15

Ouch!

I wonder if the coal fired CO2 numbers include coal extraction and transport?



#95 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,910 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 26 August 2014 - 09:49

The electricity cost for EV's is minuscule compared to petrol. Battery replacement cost is far greater (but combined still cheaper than petrol).

 

EV's are lower CO2 than petrol cars - even if the electricity is 100% from coal. Of course there are none of the tailpipe nasties and power stations aren't located in the city.

No power stations in cities? Many cities large and small have power stations. Of all types, coal, nuclear etc. Not many hydro ones near cities though, probably some though.

The other problem with plug in cars most economies are fairly borderline for power now. Plug in a million cars per country and what do you have? Blackouts! 



#96 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,910 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 26 August 2014 - 09:51

Ouch!

I wonder if the coal fired CO2 numbers include coal extraction and transport?

That I doubt, almost certainly more than liquid fuels as they are more efficient per weight and volume.

And those big ore carriers I suspect are not very economical.

Maybe they can make them hybrid, generators driven by the water they sail through! No? Maybe not.


Edited by Lee Nicolle, 26 August 2014 - 09:53.


#97 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,748 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 26 August 2014 - 10:35

That I doubt, almost certainly more than liquid fuels as they are more efficient per weight and volume.

And those big ore carriers I suspect are not very economical.

Maybe they can make them hybrid, generators driven by the water they sail through! No? Maybe not.

You're kidding right? On all three points.



#98 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,748 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 26 August 2014 - 10:43

No power stations in cities? Many cities large and small have power stations. Of all types, coal, nuclear etc. Not many hydro ones near cities though, probably some though.

The other problem with plug in cars most economies are fairly borderline for power now. Plug in a million cars per country and what do you have? Blackouts! 

For every kW.hr generated in cities there must be 100 that weren't.

Like Australia for example? Where we have a large oversupply of generating capacity.

It takes a while to manufacture and sell a million EVs per country. I suspect solar panels are being made at a faster rate than EV's worldwide.



#99 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 7,525 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 26 August 2014 - 20:01

The numbers I posted account for all those factors.

 

Perhaps you could share this "information you have found"?

I was referring to this paper on the potential for EVs to reduce global warming. Reading it again, it seems they only looked at the effectiveness of the electrical grid at producing low GHG power, without accounting for the reduction brought about by the replacement of ICE cars.

 

http://www.oeko.de/u...2012-002-en.pdf

 

Basically without adding more renewable energy sources to the electricity mix, the GHG emissions rate of the grid would increase in order to provide power for the number of EVs they are projecting.

 

So not at all what we're talking about here, sorry.



Advertisement

#100 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,932 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 26 August 2014 - 22:17

That I doubt, almost certainly more than liquid fuels as they are more efficient per weight and volume.

And those big ore carriers I suspect are not very economical.

Maybe they can make them hybrid, generators driven by the water they sail through! No? Maybe not.

 

From what I recall, trains are an order of magnitude more efficient from transporting items/product than trucks.

And ships are an order of magnitude better than trains.