For or Against ...Significantly Higher MPG, at least 50% higher?

[44mpg by 2010]

The Detroit3's "WAR" AGAINST LOWER FUEL CONSUMPTION & EMISSIONS has moved to a NEW and HIGHER LEVEL.

WE MUST BE WORRYING THEM !!!


< Today, 5/30/07, the ONLY CURRENT "DOMESTIC" vehicles rated by EPA over 30 mpg(US) combined average are the 2008 Escape, Mariner, & Mazda Tribute hybrids, and the 2007 Mini Cooper >. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byMPG.htm


The DETROIT3 have, through the Auto Alliance, altered http://www.drivecongress.com/
to eliminate the toll-free number and LIMITED THE CONSUMER COMMENTS to ELECTED OFFICIALS TO THE FOLLOWING QUOTE:

"I value fuel economy, but I also want many other attributes in my automobile like safety, passenger and cargo room, performance, towing, hauling capacity and more.

Rather than setting a harmful mandates like the one being proposed, the government should encourage the use of alternative fuels like ethanol, and provide incentives for consumers, like me, to purchase alternative fuel autos.

The Senate should let the experts at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration do their job and set standards that take into account technology, safety, cost, consumer choice and effects on American jobs."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

If ... YOU DISAGREE with ANY of these statements ....


PLEASE FEEL FREE TO EXPRESS YOUR TRUE OPINIONS at http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

... 44 mpg by 2010 ...
... or ...
Congress should IMMEDIATELY WAIVE ALL IMPORT RESTRICTIONS AND TARIFFS on vehicles that do get 44 mpg or better, CO2 less than 140 g/km, and meet Euro Step IV emissions and Safety standards (or equivalent); Effective IMMEDIATELY for a period of 36 months (OR 300,000 units of each model that satisfy the criteria).

[The River]

1. The Restrictions Should be Abolished

I talked to the owner of one of those new SMART cars
here in Virginia the other day (at a stop light). It had Canadian plates.
The driver informed me the cars would be widely available in US next year...
but not the diesel model she was driving....96 mpg.
It drove home the fact (pun intended) how our government
restricts what we are allowed to buy from where, like Canadian drug prices
and now, these cars.

[greenman3610]

2. arguing over 25 or 28 mpg is counter productive

What we should be encouraging auto makers to do is spend their money to make the
quantum leap to plug ins and battery powered vehicles, which will
get 150 mpg or use no gas at all.
These vehicles are on the road now, and mass production is about 3 years away, at which point all the hoopla
about 25 or 28 mpg requirements will seem silly.
Right now, gas prices are our best ally in making these changes
happen spontaneously. WalMart just required vendors to
double mileage for company trucks, and already they have
trucks on the road that use 25 percent less fuel, and
save 9000 per year. ( assuming 2.50 gas)


and yes, I know all about where the electricity comes from.
plugging in electric vehicles will stabilize the grid and use
currently wasted spinning reserve power, and make it possible for
utilities to bring on much more renewable power than
previously thought.
I implore all interested parties to google V2G, "vehicle to grid" --
it may be possible for PHEV drivers to earn as much as
2-4000 per year as they sleep, while their cars are plugged in, performing grid stabilization services and
providing backup power.

Best leverage point for carbon reduction at this point is to change
utility pricing structures nationwide to provide clearer incentive for
utilities to provide electric services, not just be construction companies.
Updating aging infrastructure to create the "Electranet" that Gore is
calling for will unleash a creative, market driven wave of small and
home power production that will change our society for the better,
make us more independent,and increase personal and national
security.

[44mpg by 2010]

3. EVs?

Since first made visible in January or February '07, the "VOLT" has gone from 50 mpg to 150 mpg using a 40 miles EV range. And, the reason it has not been committed to the market is because "batteries to support 40 mile EV range are not available".

NOW ... HERE IS THE HARD QUESTION: If the "VOLT" will continue to run AFTER THE BATTERIES ARE DISCHARGED ... WOULD IT NOT GET BETWEEN 100 and 110 mpg on just it's internal combustion engine? That is a fuel cost of $0.03 per mile (@ $3/gallon fuel price) or $3,000 per 100,000 miles.

Why would ANYONE want the additional weight (and cost) of batteries to achieve 40 mile EV range at a cost of about $0.05 per mile in EV mode? The long range battery pack could be a "field installable after delivery add-on option" ... you know ... like a computer memory upgrade ... IF the "long range" battery packs ever became available ... and IF the customer wanted to buy one.

That said ... WHY ISN'T IT IN THE MARKET NOW ? ? ?

COULD THE "VOLT" BE PR smoke in light of the pressure to reduce fuel consumption and emissions while the auto industry is suing to prevent improvements ... AND ... running publicity campaigns to scare consumers into opposing HIGHER MPG and LOWER EMISSIONS requirements? ? ? ! ! !

Now, assuming WE get plug-in EVs, WE need to keep in mind that the dominant fuel for electrical power generation is coal. Until adequate emissions cleaning/scrubbing ARE in place on ALL coal fired plants, it is reasonable to believe that the "environmental risk" per mile is greater with EV than with one of the new clean small (under 2 liter) diesel engine powered EU vehicles when operating above 50 mpg(US). This issue is OBVIOUSLY RESOLVED with the full implementation of renewables: solar, wind, or hydro power as you suggest.

Let's take the "VOLT" in EV mode as things are today, it consumes about 0.4 kw hr/mile. Due to generation and power distribution losses, somewhee between 0.66 and 1.2 kw hr must be converted to electrical energy for every mile traveled. On the other hand, IF the "VOLT" gets the publicized 100 mpg on the IC engine ... the energy content of fuel consumed is about 0.42 kw hr/mile ... this analysis is not completely correct since I have not included getting the fuel to the car or the power plant. But, I think you get the idea.

Now, YOU DECIDE for YOURSELF....

[greenman3610]

5. no, your assumption is wrong

On the Volt, the IC engine does not drive the wheels.
It kicks in when the battery charge is down
to a critical level, and functions merely to keep the battery charged.

GM's chairman now knows that killing the electric car was the worst decision
they ever made.

highly recommended: the most accurate energy forcaster of the
last 30 years, Amory Lovins, has a lecture series available on line, for
free. Listen to the one on transportation:
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid231.php

then try
http://www.greencarcongress.com/v2g/index.html

------------
http://www.caranddriver.com/dailyautoinsider/13079/gm-turning-green.html

General Motors has assigned hundreds of engineers and allotted millions of dollars in an effort to become the greenest company in the auto industry, The Wall Street Journal reported.

"We have to have people think we are part of the solution, not part of the problem," the WSJ quoted Lawrence Burns, GM's vice president for research and development and global planning, as saying.

Among the projects GM is fast-tracking:

the Chevrolet Volt, a compact car with a huge T-shaped battery pack in the middle with a small gasoline engine in the front, not to drive the wheels but to serve as a generator to recharge the battery. GM estimates the vehicle could go 150 miles on a gallon of gas.
GM's hydrogen fuel-cell technology is scheduled to be transferred from the lab to an engineering group that prepares new powertrains for commercial launch, a sign of increased determination to put hydrogen-powered vehicles on the road, the WSJ said.

[NickB79]

9. The Volt never discharges its batteries, though. You don't seem to understand the Volt concept

Like the Toyota Prius, the computer onboard would maintain the battery charge within a certain limit, usually never letting it drop below 50% charge. Completely draining and recharging the battery severely shortens its effective lifespan. Instead, a fully charged battery pack can run for 40 miles alone before reaching the preset limit of drain, in which case the gasoline engine starts up TO RECHARGE THE BATTERIES. The car never actually runs on the gasoline engine alone; the gasoline engine itself is only a 1.0-L, turbocharged 3-cylinder putting out 70 HP. These engines are nothing new, as they are popular in small European cars that already get 50+ mpg. The car would also need the batteries to take advantage of regenerative braking in city driving situations (one of the reasons the Prius gets better MPG in city driving than highway).

"NOW ... HERE IS THE HARD QUESTION: If the "VOLT" will continue to run AFTER THE BATTERIES ARE DISCHARGED ... WOULD IT NOT GET BETWEEN 100 and 110 mpg on just it's internal combustion engine?"

Based on what I explained above, you can see that the Volt's hypothetical MPG rating is completely dependent upon the battery pack/hybrid system. Simply building a car the size of the Volt, but only installing the 70-HP engine, and you won't see very good gas mileage. For example, the Smart Car was recently reviewed in Popular Science. It has an engine very similar to the Volt's gasoline engine, but is much smaller and lighter. Their overall MPG rating was in the mid-40's after driving a mixture of city and highway across the US, in a vehicle much smaller and lighter than the Volt concept.

[44mpg by 2010]

14. Please clarify your post

NickB79, your explainantion does not clarify the VOLT's operation OR fuel economy to me.

The "VOLT" is said to "ideally" have a 40 mile plug-in EV range with a total range of at least 600 miles without fillup or recharge (say, a 600 milr trip on I20, you pick east or west bound).

So how many gallons of fuel are required to complete the last 560 miles of a trip?

According to one report the "VOLT" (with a fully charged 40 mile range battery pack) was expected to travel a distance of 150 miles on ONE (1) gallon of fuel, as suggested in an NPR interview with Mr. Lutz.

So, IF the battery is discharged to it's allowable limit after 40 miles AND the vehicle continues to travel for another 100 miles consuming 1 gallon of fuel, and, if the IC engine does not provide the propulsion energy for the last 100+ miles, what does? Remember we have already agreed that the B-Pack is at (or near) the discharge limit after the first 40 miles (less than 7% of the vehicle's total 600 mile travel range).

Then if, the B-Pack reaches discharge limit in 1 or 2 miles wouldn't the "VOLT" continue for another 560 miles? IF NOT, please explain.

That is why it appears to me that that the EV range is NOT rellevant to the function of the VOLT as a "long range high mpg" vehicle !

Please explain what I missed.

Regarding your comments about the SMART.

Multiply the vehicle's weight in tons times it's mpg. IF, the results are less than 50 ton*mpg, the vehicle worse than the typical American car. If the value is about 90 ton*mpg it is in the range of a Prius. When the value reachies 280 to 360 ton*mpg you are in the range of an efficient long haul tractor trailer.

[NickB79]

15. You can only drive 60 miles at the 150 mpg rating, then it drops to 50 mpg

From Chevy's website: http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/ (click on "60 Mile Trips")

"Expect an estimated 150 equivalent miles per gallon when you use this electric battery and gasoline-combination to drive approximately 60 miles per day."

The 150 mpg range is not for the whole tank; it is simply for the first 60 miles where the first 40 are from pure EV mode, after which the backup engine recharges the battery.

Under the "Long Drives" icon, it states:

"A trip like this will give you an estimated 50 equivalent miles per gallon using gasoline. Driving range between fill-ups could be as much as an outstanding 640 miles.(1)"

[Xithras]

17. Ideally, possibly, but EV's won't work in many climates.

Electrics are good in the flatlands and areas of temperate climate, but they tend to fall on their face efficiency-wise once you encounter hilly terrain or have to flip on the air conditioner (and woe to the poor EV driver who has to do both at once).

I live in a valley sandwiched between two mountain ranges, where summer temperatures routinely hit 105 degrees and stay there for weeks on end. The AC switch in the car gets flipped on in early June, and doesn't get turned off again until October. NOT running AC in your car here can be lethal. Likewise, all of the interesting vacation spots, day trips, and JOBS are uphill of my current location. It's very flat here, but a drive to a Bay Area job involves crossing not one, but two mountain passes. Since commuters are going to be among the first adopters of this kind of technology, it has to work for them.

Hybrids work because the powerplant in the vehicle can fall back to gas when the electric can't take the load or depletes. Pure EV's won't work, because no battery technologies have been developed that hold the energy required for commutes like that.

[razzleberry]

13. the VOLT cuts the oil companies out of the deal

(at least to the extent that plug in electricity is used)

anything is better than petroleum

[AdHocSolver]

4. One can produce a vehicle that is large, safe, fast, and gets good mileage at the same time...

and isn't overly expensive. The U.S. auto companies just don't want to. Back in the 1990's, California mandated development of electric vehicles for demonstration and testing. General Motors created the EV1 and then the EV2. They were leased to California volunteers to test drive. The people loved them so much that GM had them recalled and destroyed. This was documented in the movie "Who killed the Electric Car?"

Back around 1912, Thomas Edison and Henry Ford were working on development of an electric car that Ford was planning to mass produce in his auto plant. A mysterious explosion and fire that destroyed most of Edison's laboratory complex about the time they were planning to gear up for production put an end to their plans. This episode is documented in Edwin Black's book "Internal Combustion".

Gasoline engines are highly inefficient. They only work well when hot so that most of the gasoline is used just to heat them up and keep them hot. They have hundreds of moving parts so that they have to overcome lots of friction, which uses gas. They produce relatively low torque, so a complicated gas-wasting transmission is necessary to convert the high RPM's to lower RPM's and higher torque. They produce a lot of pollution. They need constant maintenance and replacement parts (which is good for the auto companies' bottom lines.)

Electric motors don't need to work at high temperatures. They have only a handful of moving parts which means: less wasted energy due to friction, less heat produced, fewer parts to wear out, lower cost to produce; since they can produce substantial torque even at low RPM, they don't need any complex fuel wasting transmission to buy or repair. Performance? One electric vehicle can go from zero to 60 MPH in 4 seconds. When the vehicle is stopped, the electric motor is OFF. No wasted fuel there.

In short, electric vehicles are potentially cheaper to produce, operate, and maintain. Good for the consumer, less profitable for the auto companies.

As for long distance driving, using a small gasoline engine to drive an alternator to recharge the batteries "on-demand" would easily allow for a range of hundreds of miles. The batteries are only needed to supply a high current when the vehicle first accelerates. Once the motor only needs to supply torque to overcome friction, current demand drops enough so that the alternator would be able to keep up with the demand.

[greenman3610]

6. you correctly describe the Volt concept

I have a theory that coming close to collapse as they
have lately has concentrated the minds of GM management.

IN any case, with Toyota coming on strong, the compelling
features of electric or PHEV are so clear, and rapidly will become
clear to the consumer, that the only way for auto
companies to stay in business will be to take this
route.
starting in the coming 3 to 5 years, there will be a change in technology as sweeping as the
advent of television, or the internet.

People will choose ev, not because they are greener, or
more efficient, but because they are better, period.

[One_Life_To_Give]

7. Smoke and Mirrors

Gasoline engines are highly inefficient. They only work well when hot so that most of the gasoline is used just to heat them up and keep them hot. They have hundreds of moving parts so that they have to overcome lots of friction, which uses gas.

IC Engines like all thrmodynamic machines work on a temperature difference. They need a source of both Hot and Cold. In the case of the typical auto engine the "Hot" is a freshly burned mixture of compressed gas and air(over 2000C), while the cold is the external ambient 25C +/-.

The temperature of the engine is a by-product of it having to harness the high temperature burned mixture. The relatively recent increase in waterjacket temperature was more about emissions than efficiency.

There is a reason that New Container ships are being built with a single main propulsion diesel IC engine. While a ship of that size could use any commercially available electric generation technology, same as what powers your home or buisiness. They use the Wartsilla diesel to move these ships around.

Electricity like Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not a source.

[AdHocSolver]

11. I had a car that didn't get to operating temperature due to a failed thermostat, and ...

it ran poorly and got much poorer gas mileage, until I replaced the thermostat. The fuel-air mixture has to be richer in a cold engine or the engine loses power, and in a carbureted engine might even quit. Richer fuel-air mixture means less gas mileage.

In addition, cold oil is more viscous and so lubricates less efficiently, and the parts in a cold engine aren't expanded to their proper tolerances so engine operation and gas mileage suffer there also.

The engine can't be allowed to get too hot either or the oil will break down and no longer lubricate, and the engine parts will expand too much and seize up and the engine quit. I had that experience also when a water hose in an old car cracked letting the water leak out.

Any IC gasoline engine is designed to operate at a specific temperature (which is set by the thermostat) irrespective of the outside air temperature. The power is generated by the expanding gases in the cylinder pushing down on the piston which is free to move and is attached to a crankshaft at one end. The back and forth motion of the pistons is converted to rotary motion by the crankshaft.

[phantom power]

8. "for," but mostly I think people are going to drive a lot less.

[gravity]

10. The problem is that people don't want higher gas mileage

Most people say they support it, but when it comes out to picking a car they don't.

All car companies offer their cars with different engines sizes, and a lot of the time people will sacrifice gas mileage if it means more power. The car companies just give consumers what they want, and if they all want higher gas mileage, then they would give them higher gas mileage cars.

I'm not saying this bill is a bad idea, but it will piss off a lot of consumers too. People already have options to drive more efficient vehicles, but they don't. It's not just the auto companies fault.

[AdHocSolver]

12. People want to spend less money on gasoline.

Up to now, they haven't concerned themselves with gas mileage because gas was relatively cheap, and even driving gas guzzlers didn't hurt their pocket books much. The auto companies could have produced the same kind of cars and still made them to get better gas mileage. Back in the seventies, the auto companies were "encouraged" by government mandate to improve gas mileage and they actually did it. The result was reduced demand, fewer oil imports, and stabilized gas prices.

What happened was that Reagan and Daddy Bush stopped enforcing the "better mileage" regulations, so the auto companies just ignored efficiency in the cars they designed and produced. The technology was there as one can see from the fact that Japanese and European car manufacturers were able to do it.

Why didn't U.S. car companies produce cars with better gas mileage? First, the same financial groups that own a lot of auto company stock also own a lot of oil company stock. Second, Japan and European countries have good mass transit systems so that the people in those countries aren't so dependent on their cars for transportation.

One last point. Ethanol and hydrogen vehicles are a "fool's" solution to high gas prices. Ethanol requires almost as much oil to manufacture and transport as you save gasoline by using it. At the same time, making ethanol from corn removes a lot of corn from the food supply so the result is you push up the price of food. Going to hydrogen powered vehicles means building a manufacturing, storage, and distribution system that is going to make hydrogen very expensive, and still leave you at the mercy of the oil companies.

The only viable solution to high oil prices is reduced consumption.

[44mpg by 2010]

16. Choices

Your point is that people DO NOT CHOOSE hi mpg vehicles ... you realize there are only 2 choices over 40 mpg and there are NO CHOICES from Detroit for 2007 rated even 30 mpg combined average according to the 2008 EPA methodology.

By my definition the DET3 choices for fuel economy are either "BAD" or "WORSE". I happen to like 40 to 60 mpg(US) machines in Europe from FORD, GM (Opel/Vauxhall), Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Nissan, Toyota, the list goes on. see: http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/
Check "Fuel economy" by manufacturer between 54 and 70 mpg(Imperial), that's equivalent to 45 to 58 mpg(US) combined average.

"44 mpg(US) by 2010”

“ ... not for ALL ... not for average CAFE ...”

“JUST MORE CHOICES for those THAT WANT better than 44 mpg …"

"waive import restriction (for 24 months - including diesels) if that is the only way".