If anyone here has the latest car and driver (i typically don't like this magazine) it has the most brilliantly written article by one of the editors on the real effects of cars on the environment. I hope someone could put the gist of it down here.
But at the same time, you HAVE to think for the future. Now, I'm not especially 'green' as I can see that wind, solar and wave power isn't actually totally clean, and can just have 'different' effects on the environment, some just as bad in the long term.
Personally I am a nuclear man (not literally), as I believe it to be safe and pretty clean. Of course, it will never be totally clean, and the waste will cause problems (though the actual volume/toxicity of the waste for a given amount of plutonium is ever decreasing). But you're also heating local sea water etc etc.
I cannot and could not advocate electric cars whilst they are being powered by fossil fuels - the gains are slight, and the losses (i.e. disposing of the bits) quite high. In the short term there is no doubt that more efficient and cleaner gasoline engines are the way forwards, with fuel cells being the next proper avenue to explore commercially.
If petrol engines could be un-throttle we'd see a massive jump in fuel economy, and this is where a lot of research is going at the moment. But burning the fuel in such lean conditions has it's downsides too, in terms of heat, emissions etc. It's a never ending battle to reduce pollution. Electric cars are not, currently, the answer.
Personally I am a nuclear man (not literally), as I believe it to be safe and pretty clean. Of course, it will never be totally clean, and the waste will cause problems (though the actual volume/toxicity of the waste for a given amount of plutonium is ever decreasing). But you're also heating local sea water etc etc.
I cannot and could not advocate electric cars whilst they are being powered by fossil fuels - the gains are slight, and the losses (i.e. disposing of the bits) quite high. In the short term there is no doubt that more efficient and cleaner gasoline engines are the way forwards, with fuel cells being the next proper avenue to explore commercially.
If petrol engines could be un-throttle we'd see a massive jump in fuel economy, and this is where a lot of research is going at the moment. But burning the fuel in such lean conditions has it's downsides too, in terms of heat, emissions etc. It's a never ending battle to reduce pollution. Electric cars are not, currently, the answer.
Well, as I said, as long as something like nuclear fusion remians unrealized, the EV idea is practically useless.
There's been research on the idea of HCCI engines (Homogenous charge Compression Ignition). This is basically just further dieselization of the petrol engine. So why not just advance diesels real quickly? Diesels are already compression ignited, run unthrottled (fuel flow rate controlled only) and with higher pressure piezo electric injectors, more optimized injection timing and spray patterns, you simply end up with a more and more atomized and homogenous charge.
The point is, why bother with petrol when diesel already runs on the same principle that petrol tries to emulate? This gasoline engine at all cost mentality is highly oxymoronic. Gasoline is absolutely dependant on fossil fuels, whereas diesels could use both mineral and organic fuels. In fact, Dr Rudolf Diesel created this type of engine as a way for farmers to run engines with the fuels (peanut oil at the time) they produce themselves.
The truth is , once the technology that goes into the AUDI R10 hits the road, it'll be the final nail in the coffin for petrol cars, at least in Europe. As diesel performance and emmisions control advances, even the americans will be force to see the light.
What stuns me is how many members of this world community simply ignore such a potential solution to their motoring problems that's right under their noses. Well, Malaysia currently has a pretty sustantial stock of palm oil that's heavily underpriced (below proper market price) and practically neglected. Ah, unbridled capatalism.
There's been research on the idea of HCCI engines (Homogenous charge Compression Ignition). This is basically just further dieselization of the petrol engine. So why not just advance diesels real quickly? Diesels are already compression ignited, run unthrottled (fuel flow rate controlled only) and with higher pressure piezo electric injectors, more optimized injection timing and spray patterns, you simply end up with a more and more atomized and homogenous charge.
The point is, why bother with petrol when diesel already runs on the same principle that petrol tries to emulate? This gasoline engine at all cost mentality is highly oxymoronic. Gasoline is absolutely dependant on fossil fuels, whereas diesels could use both mineral and organic fuels. In fact, Dr Rudolf Diesel created this type of engine as a way for farmers to run engines with the fuels (peanut oil at the time) they produce themselves.
The truth is , once the technology that goes into the AUDI R10 hits the road, it'll be the final nail in the coffin for petrol cars, at least in Europe. As diesel performance and emmisions control advances, even the americans will be force to see the light.
What stuns me is how many members of this world community simply ignore such a potential solution to their motoring problems that's right under their noses. Well, Malaysia currently has a pretty sustantial stock of palm oil that's heavily underpriced (below proper market price) and practically neglected. Ah, unbridled capatalism.
Maybe its because many people who hear "electric" all of a sudden think "green."
Diesels won't ever be clean - gasoline engines produce less nasty emissions per mile/km that diesels. I don't remember hearing about exhaust gases from petrol that can give you cancer... I'm fully in agreement with the dieselisation of petrol engines (nice term btw, did you invent it just then?). But regardless, IC engines have a limited lifetime. The solution just isn't clear yet.
And there will never be any.
Since there isn't any "clean" power source. (think deep enough to see the development of a solar-panel, and the waste included in that process)
On the other hand there is the big amount of energy needed (and wasted at traffic lights) to accelarate a "known" normal car for city-cruising.
I'm not saying we should do all our ways with bicycles, but without a proper energy efficient way of travelling, we'll be going in circles, never reaching any solution.
regards
The thing about diesel and clean... How can you think a car could be clean, if it produces big black clouds as soon as you step on the accelerator. And yes, now they equib them with particle filters... how clean must a car be if you need a filter for almost macroscopic combustion residues?
im going to invent a car that runs by photosenthysis
no actually, im pretty positive by saying this, is the problem with cars today (and always have been) is the same thing true for all machinery, the less moving parts, the smoother running it is (and thats true for anything, it doesn't have to be machinery, it could be a situation or.. lots of things)
i mean, i can't even imagine how many moving parts are in engines today, my guess would be somewhere in the few hundred thousands
so basically what we drive around in this world today.. are giant.. friction turds
yes, you heard it here first, we drive around friction enhanced turds... literally (unless your car isn't brown.. mine for one is not.. i have a white turd) and yes, it turns out it really is a turd, because i learned something new about it tonight during dinner.. and according to my dad, something horribly bad occurs at 65+ mph with the transmission
no actually, im pretty positive by saying this, is the problem with cars today (and always have been) is the same thing true for all machinery, the less moving parts, the smoother running it is (and thats true for anything, it doesn't have to be machinery, it could be a situation or.. lots of things)
i mean, i can't even imagine how many moving parts are in engines today, my guess would be somewhere in the few hundred thousands
so basically what we drive around in this world today.. are giant.. friction turds
yes, you heard it here first, we drive around friction enhanced turds... literally (unless your car isn't brown.. mine for one is not.. i have a white turd) and yes, it turns out it really is a turd, because i learned something new about it tonight during dinner.. and according to my dad, something horribly bad occurs at 65+ mph with the transmission
Nowadays new diesels have particulate filters, so they are as clean as petrol engines. Diesels only lack in nitroxen oxides, but besides that they are cleaner than petrols.
The black smoke thing was like 10 years ago.. I'm not a diesel fan, I prefer petrol cars but I'm just trying to be objective here.
http://www.ecotravel.org.uk/fuels_5.html
The black smoke thing was like 10 years ago.. I'm not a diesel fan, I prefer petrol cars but I'm just trying to be objective here.
http://www.ecotravel.org.uk/fuels_5.html
The black smoke does still exist since the "old" diesels haven't been removed from the streets. And I don't think diesels are as clean as or even cleaner than petrol engines, I just have to find some proof for that...
edit: nevermind, today's diesels come relativly close to petrols...
if anyone comes up to me with a so called "clean" diesel engine;
well.. i'll slap and then tell you to change the oil in a diesel, then ask you how you feel after doing so.
Possibly a little dirty?
on the other hand, lets keep the world smelling like a mexican taco bar and run bio diesels!
A gallon of diesel has more BTU than a gallon of gas. If a gallon of diesel has 140 kBTU, and a gallon of gas has 120kBTU, then we can say that one gallon of diesel is equal to 1.15 gallons of gas. So, if there is more BTU in diesel, then if we make diesel engines really efficiant, we will be burning less, and therefore be polluting less.
Heh, my pushbike weighs less than all your cars! 
(and it's a heavy bast*** at that)
(and it's a heavy bast*** at that)
Yeah, everyone who drives them creates SMUG. But lots of people are turning away from Electric cars in the UK anyway, with electric prices still on the march, it'll cost more to keep one running then it ever would a car. And lest not forget the lame rainge. 250miles. Pish, that'd only just get me from my house to uni.
But when it boils down to it really. Humans do so little to hurt the planet it's funny, we are so egotistical "Save the planet" save it from what? Us? This ol' rock has been here for billions of years before we ever landed, and will billions after we're gone. "Save the humans" should be the real campain.
But lets look at the facts over 95% (I forget the exact figure) of green houses gasses are water vapour created by... the sun heating up the planet. Which is going to melt the ice caps, which will freeze the planet... wow, now where has that happened before. Oh that's right, the last ice age. Save the planet indeed, the planets fine. Humans are ****ed. Because after we all die, there will be plenty more fossles to make new fuel.
But if you really want an environmentally friendly car. Get the new S Class.
My car is not environmentally friendly, and I really dont give a damn.
Sorry but I want a reasonably fast car with lots of metal around me, i'll let the left wing liberal tree hugging dykes worry about balancing out my output, because I feel safer in a big car and I feel less vulnerable if I can get away from a hoody in a Nova.
Sorry but I want a reasonably fast car with lots of metal around me, i'll let the left wing liberal tree hugging dykes worry about balancing out my output, because I feel safer in a big car and I feel less vulnerable if I can get away from a hoody in a Nova.
I'm disappointed that when it comes to diesels, most people in this forum seem to bury their head in the sands and resort to typical hardcore petrolhead dark ages crap. I'm surprised that so many here still equate diesel with black smoke.
This unfortunately unjustified black smoky diesel mentality is so prevalent thanks again to our world of mindless captalism. I bet most of you get your diesel impressions from 18 wheelers smoking like mad. The horrible truth is that environmental concerns always take a back seat to corporate bottom lines. If it wasn't for the new diesel emmsion laws in the US, no one would bother to upgrade their HD diesel truck engines to current levels of emmsion control.
Diesel always dirtier than petrol? You guys must be stuck in the 80's. My 1994 2.5L NA diesel Pajero (4D56) which emits NO visible smoke after a 1 minute warmup. It doesn't even have ANY of the modern emmisions control systems such as soot filters! I actually pushed it to its (4700rpm) redline on each shift just to test it, and guess what? No detectable smoke. It was performed under load, with someone at the back to observe the exhaust emmisons (don't try this yoursleves folks!) whilst on the move. Tests at no load (static car) again yielded no visible smoke. All done with traditional indirect injection (no common rail or other late tech).
When was the last time you see a well-maintained 2006 3.2L turbodiesel Pajero emit any visible emmsions? Bet none. The truth is, diesel is superior to petrol in all emmisions except NOx. That is simply a result of high air to fuel ratios, since our air is over 70% N2 after all. Robust (sulfur tolerant) NOx scrubbers already exist, so that will soon be a VERY moot point.
Petrols have always traditionally had problems with unburnt hydrocabons. If you read my posts from the diesel thread, you should understand why this is. The only way to generate significant unburnt diesel from a diesel engine is to significantly over fuel it or with poor fuel atomization. Petrols are always run at least slightly rich, and at any throttle setting below WOT, it only runs richer. And I have a hard time believing petrol emmsions don't have any carcinogenic effects too.
For the truely environmentally concerned, do remember that the AUDI R10 is still the QUIETEST race engine in recent history. Diesel turbo synergy... There is no substitute.
Unless people (especially americans) stop loosing their unfounded stigma of diesels, our energy, economic and environmental problems will only grow worse as we enslave ourselves to petroleum only gasoline. Although clean electric generation would be the ultimate solution, that is still too far fetched. Currently, diesels are one of the still relatively underdeveloped IC engines that still possese massive potential.
Speaking of black oils, that's pretty much standard practice these days for all kinds of engines, though its just more obvious for diesels. Today's detergent oils are designed to clean and suspend residual soot, and since the standard diesel oil change interval specification has grown form the old 5000km standard to the more recent 10,000km standard, this only gets more obvious. Contrary to poular belief, colour alone is a poor indicator of oil viality (except for extreme cases). The darkening oil doesn't mean that your engine's extra dirty. It simply means that the oil is doing its job.
If biodiesel production technology is allowed to develop full blast, we won't be complaining about petrol prices now. With reason biotechnological discoveries, the effeciency of biodiesel generation will only go up. Then again, we've got crude oil companies watching us. A recently discovered method to "grow" biodiesel via the use of specilalized algea had a oil production to area of land ratio than any of the standard contemporary source (canola oil, soy oil, peanut oil, plam oil, etc). Anyway, it's via photosynthesis, so a large portion of the CO2 emmitted from your biodiesel engines go right back to new oils. The circle of biodisesel life. A beautiful fusion of biological and technological solutions.
We must agree that petrols are facing obsolescence. It's about time we let technology progress and give a chance to potentially superior alternatives.
This unfortunately unjustified black smoky diesel mentality is so prevalent thanks again to our world of mindless captalism. I bet most of you get your diesel impressions from 18 wheelers smoking like mad. The horrible truth is that environmental concerns always take a back seat to corporate bottom lines. If it wasn't for the new diesel emmsion laws in the US, no one would bother to upgrade their HD diesel truck engines to current levels of emmsion control.
Diesel always dirtier than petrol? You guys must be stuck in the 80's. My 1994 2.5L NA diesel Pajero (4D56) which emits NO visible smoke after a 1 minute warmup. It doesn't even have ANY of the modern emmisions control systems such as soot filters! I actually pushed it to its (4700rpm) redline on each shift just to test it, and guess what? No detectable smoke. It was performed under load, with someone at the back to observe the exhaust emmisons (don't try this yoursleves folks!) whilst on the move. Tests at no load (static car) again yielded no visible smoke. All done with traditional indirect injection (no common rail or other late tech).
When was the last time you see a well-maintained 2006 3.2L turbodiesel Pajero emit any visible emmsions? Bet none. The truth is, diesel is superior to petrol in all emmisions except NOx. That is simply a result of high air to fuel ratios, since our air is over 70% N2 after all. Robust (sulfur tolerant) NOx scrubbers already exist, so that will soon be a VERY moot point.
Petrols have always traditionally had problems with unburnt hydrocabons. If you read my posts from the diesel thread, you should understand why this is. The only way to generate significant unburnt diesel from a diesel engine is to significantly over fuel it or with poor fuel atomization. Petrols are always run at least slightly rich, and at any throttle setting below WOT, it only runs richer. And I have a hard time believing petrol emmsions don't have any carcinogenic effects too.
For the truely environmentally concerned, do remember that the AUDI R10 is still the QUIETEST race engine in recent history. Diesel turbo synergy... There is no substitute.
Unless people (especially americans) stop loosing their unfounded stigma of diesels, our energy, economic and environmental problems will only grow worse as we enslave ourselves to petroleum only gasoline. Although clean electric generation would be the ultimate solution, that is still too far fetched. Currently, diesels are one of the still relatively underdeveloped IC engines that still possese massive potential.
Speaking of black oils, that's pretty much standard practice these days for all kinds of engines, though its just more obvious for diesels. Today's detergent oils are designed to clean and suspend residual soot, and since the standard diesel oil change interval specification has grown form the old 5000km standard to the more recent 10,000km standard, this only gets more obvious. Contrary to poular belief, colour alone is a poor indicator of oil viality (except for extreme cases). The darkening oil doesn't mean that your engine's extra dirty. It simply means that the oil is doing its job.
If biodiesel production technology is allowed to develop full blast, we won't be complaining about petrol prices now. With reason biotechnological discoveries, the effeciency of biodiesel generation will only go up. Then again, we've got crude oil companies watching us. A recently discovered method to "grow" biodiesel via the use of specilalized algea had a oil production to area of land ratio than any of the standard contemporary source (canola oil, soy oil, peanut oil, plam oil, etc). Anyway, it's via photosynthesis, so a large portion of the CO2 emmitted from your biodiesel engines go right back to new oils. The circle of biodisesel life. A beautiful fusion of biological and technological solutions.
We must agree that petrols are facing obsolescence. It's about time we let technology progress and give a chance to potentially superior alternatives.
Just quickly - if you have a particulate filter on a diesel (which are things that don't burn very well), what do you do when the filter is 'full'? That's right, you try and burn them in the exhaust (by various means). So the nasty, carcenogenic bits come back into the atmosphere anyway.
The fact is that diesels just aren't very clean - including modern ones. Sure, they are better than they were, but already they're near their limits of cleanliness. The next advances will be in reducing the noises and improving the output characteristics for everyday driving (i.e. not having all the torque at 3rpm).
You might be an advocate of diesel, and accuse us of being close minded. But by being an advocate you are by definition close minded yourself (no offence intended). Diesel will probably win in the short term for the economy benefits at part load. But I will run a petrol for as long as I can, safe in the knowledge I'm doing less harm to other people and the environment. And I won't have to listen to diesel clatter
The fact is that diesels just aren't very clean - including modern ones. Sure, they are better than they were, but already they're near their limits of cleanliness. The next advances will be in reducing the noises and improving the output characteristics for everyday driving (i.e. not having all the torque at 3rpm).
You might be an advocate of diesel, and accuse us of being close minded. But by being an advocate you are by definition close minded yourself (no offence intended). Diesel will probably win in the short term for the economy benefits at part load. But I will run a petrol for as long as I can, safe in the knowledge I'm doing less harm to other people and the environment. And I won't have to listen to diesel clatter
I'm saying that until something like nuclear fusion comes along, diesel is still a better short term choice. And how often can we actually go at WOT?
As for soot filters, there are various ways to deal with them. You could just burn them off, or we could get real serious with carbon recyclng.
So, what's the source of soot? Imcomplete conbustion. Again, something that will seriously drop as injection pressures go up and fuel atomization and injection strategies improve (heard of 2 stage injection timings?). So as technology improves, the soot problem falls by default.
Diesel clatter? What about petrol shriek? Seriously, even my old 4D56 has problems trying to wake anyone up form any radius of greater than 3m. And mind you, it's way within safe noise limits. You can't (barely) hear its arrival until its closer than 10m (at normal throttle). Engine noise? Subjective pop culture/ fashion crap. Some like diesel throatiness, other like petrol shriek, so it's a moot point. Besides, cars today are already endangering lives via overisolation, being sonoise insulated that the driver recieves absolutely NO useful feedback.
Tristan, I know you're a hardcore petrolhead and accuse me of hardcore diesel advocacy. If I was truely a diesel at all cost nut, why would I like something like the Tesla? The truth is, I'll support any technology that's potentially better than the existing ones. If nuclear fusion is already perfected, I'll choose a high performance electric car over any IC car. And 250miles == short range? A petrol car with a 50L tank and 183kW won't do too much better.
Conclusively, I'm just saying that diesel currently has the most PRACTICAL potential, since we've dealt with IC engines for over a century. If there is any hope of better car engines in the future, alternative engine technologies to petrol must be acceped and developed. Otherwise, our inability to seek for better power sources will be our undoing.
As for soot filters, there are various ways to deal with them. You could just burn them off, or we could get real serious with carbon recyclng.
So, what's the source of soot? Imcomplete conbustion. Again, something that will seriously drop as injection pressures go up and fuel atomization and injection strategies improve (heard of 2 stage injection timings?). So as technology improves, the soot problem falls by default.
Diesel clatter? What about petrol shriek? Seriously, even my old 4D56 has problems trying to wake anyone up form any radius of greater than 3m. And mind you, it's way within safe noise limits. You can't (barely) hear its arrival until its closer than 10m (at normal throttle). Engine noise? Subjective pop culture/ fashion crap. Some like diesel throatiness, other like petrol shriek, so it's a moot point. Besides, cars today are already endangering lives via overisolation, being sonoise insulated that the driver recieves absolutely NO useful feedback.
Tristan, I know you're a hardcore petrolhead and accuse me of hardcore diesel advocacy. If I was truely a diesel at all cost nut, why would I like something like the Tesla? The truth is, I'll support any technology that's potentially better than the existing ones. If nuclear fusion is already perfected, I'll choose a high performance electric car over any IC car. And 250miles == short range? A petrol car with a 50L tank and 183kW won't do too much better.
Conclusively, I'm just saying that diesel currently has the most PRACTICAL potential, since we've dealt with IC engines for over a century. If there is any hope of better car engines in the future, alternative engine technologies to petrol must be acceped and developed. Otherwise, our inability to seek for better power sources will be our undoing.
going back on topic
something like the tesla would be different and bring a new experience but what worries me is the (lack of) sound, i'd assume the majority of any noise would be road / tyre noise and wind noise plus some form of electric motor and transmission noise and i'm not too sure how it would affect the driving experience
on the other hand the mental picture of the devs chassing after milk floats with their recorders in their hands is quite amusing.
also i'd expect that this sort of company may be keen to have their product placed in an enviroment that has a more sporty image than the aforementioned milk floats
something like the tesla would be different and bring a new experience but what worries me is the (lack of) sound, i'd assume the majority of any noise would be road / tyre noise and wind noise plus some form of electric motor and transmission noise and i'm not too sure how it would affect the driving experience
on the other hand the mental picture of the devs chassing after milk floats with their recorders in their hands is quite amusing.
also i'd expect that this sort of company may be keen to have their product placed in an enviroment that has a more sporty image than the aforementioned milk floats
You have to transport petrol/diesel in a truck, electricity is already in our homes
250 miles (Tesla) vs 200 miles (PML Mini) isn't far off, especially considering you can increase that to 1000 miles with a tiny petrol generator (I know, I know, it's burning petrol. But it's still more efficient than a normal car)
The figures on the PML website haven't been updated recently, they're actually expecting 0-60 in 3.7sec. I don't care about top speed, I'd never drive a car that fast.
Lithium batteries also have a tendancy to explode if conditions aren't perfect, look at the Dell/Apple laptop recalls, flashlights exploding, planes being forced to land due to exploding cargo and so on. I'd rather avoid a technology that may make my car spontaneously combust (Tesla say they've avoided this problem, but I'll believe it when I see it)
I drive a BMW 1502, completely stock.
I'd still love to see an electric car in LFS, I've wanted diesels for years.
My real point isn't really the top speed number. It's the fact that THIS much power generates such an abysmal top speed in such a small car. Either the mini is remarkably poor aerodynamiccally, or the motor has problems at high speeds.
Li-ion just happen to be the best commercially viable electric batteries ATM. So do not assume they will be de rigeur in the future. If people really care, we'll already be seriously seeking superior technologies. Let me enlighten you to the fact that your petrol tanks are MUCH BIGGER bombs then the batteries, so that's a moot point. Seriously, ATM, whichever EV is better isn't my personal concern.
By the way, nice bimmer! Wish I could take a look at yours someday. BTW, thanks for sharing my dream of representing alternatives to petrol power in LFS.
Li-ion just happen to be the best commercially viable electric batteries ATM. So do not assume they will be de rigeur in the future. If people really care, we'll already be seriously seeking superior technologies. Let me enlighten you to the fact that your petrol tanks are MUCH BIGGER bombs then the batteries, so that's a moot point. Seriously, ATM, whichever EV is better isn't my personal concern.
By the way, nice bimmer! Wish I could take a look at yours someday. BTW, thanks for sharing my dream of representing alternatives to petrol power in LFS.
Yes, it is. I can get from where I live, to uni (salford) with half a tank of fuel. The car in question being a Vauxhall [Holden/Opel] Omega 2.0i 16v CDX Auto. It gets ~35MPG (~16 in town). And even after the tip their is still plently left in the tank. 250miles is a very short distance.
Hell, when I went to Northhampton last week the Ford Focus 06[I think] we rented (Because Vauxhalls are more unreliable then Fords and the Omega has spent most of it's life on a ramp) did 250miles, well just over 250 as they had to pay for extra distance which wasn't covered in around 3/4 of a tank, and it was a baby car.
Plus lets add to the fact that if a car is running low on fuel you pull into a garage, 3 minutes later you're back on the road. If an electric car starts to run low you pull into a garage, 3 hours later you're back on the road...
I still like petrol more than diesel, I just think that diesel is a better "alternative" fuel than things like electricity, natural gas, etc. Don't even get me started on NGVs.... 
However, I would like an actual TRUE HYBRID. By this, I mean a diesel engine that turns a generator, and then a motor at each wheel. You would not need a transmission. There would be a speed sensor at each wheel, and the car could adjust the power so that all of the wheels are turning at the same speed (within a threashhold). I think that more power is lost when the engine is turning a transmission and differential than if the motor turns a generator, which in turn powers motors.
However, I would like an actual TRUE HYBRID. By this, I mean a diesel engine that turns a generator, and then a motor at each wheel. You would not need a transmission. There would be a speed sensor at each wheel, and the car could adjust the power so that all of the wheels are turning at the same speed (within a threashhold). I think that more power is lost when the engine is turning a transmission and differential than if the motor turns a generator, which in turn powers motors.
I don't think long distance journeys are the purpose of this car. Maybe annoying if you wanted it as your only car, but there you go, you can't get the family in it either.
This car is a very similar philosophy to the Venturi Fetish although significantly cheaper it would appear (450000euros for the Fetish).
I welcome cars like this, of course you have to generate the power somehow, so they're not totally clean, but as long as the percentage of power generated in power stations by renewable techniques increases (solar, wind farms, hydro-electric etc) then these cars make more and more sense environmentally.
This car is a very similar philosophy to the Venturi Fetish although significantly cheaper it would appear (450000euros for the Fetish).
I welcome cars like this, of course you have to generate the power somehow, so they're not totally clean, but as long as the percentage of power generated in power stations by renewable techniques increases (solar, wind farms, hydro-electric etc) then these cars make more and more sense environmentally.
How much power does it make? That's a major missing variable. If I'm getting a Lamborghini Gallardo vs Nissan Pulsar comparsion on fuel economy, I'll simply dimiss this a copmpletely invalid comparison. At 2.0L, your car must be either a massively tuned NA or heavily turbocharged to generate 245hp. 122.5hp/L? That's approaching 4G63 (Lancer Evolution) territory! Of course your Toyota Echo is more economical than a Supra.
It is true that the current plans for the Tesla aren't for the long distance travel, YET. As for recharge speed, that'll only inprove as technology progresses. Remeber when it used to take a day to charge your NiCads? These days, NiMH cells are fully chargable in a matter of a few hours. A few years down the line, an EV might have a recharge times of less then half an hour, if allowed to progress as quickly as practically possible.
Without support for new technology, technology and society will never progress and we are all doomed to a future of endless crude oil addiction.
I'm not trying to bash you in any way , wheelhammer, but hybrids are what smart engineers call "An Oymoronically complex solution to a relatively simpler problem". Since only one engine will run most of the time, the other usually spends a lot of time as dead weight. It's doing the job of 1 motor with 2 motors. Besides, they'll never be of zero exhaust emmsions like true EVs. There're just a marketting scam to be absolutely blunt. As for diesel Hybrid, it's pointless, since diesels already run so well at part throttle anyway. Petrol hybrids make sense because the motor's high torque at low revs nature(great for raffic) makes up for petrol peakiness and the need to run WOT to achieve maximum efficiency. A diesel hybrid will be just an exercise of maximum complexity for unjustifiably low comparative gain.
New car suggestion: Tesla roadster
(103 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG