In your travels and observations did you get a feel as to what some of the cars you mention cost to the average consumer? I am sure it opened your eyes !
Yes, I think a lot of folks would like to brand/label the diesel with those 70's stereotypes. Yet those very same folks, in addition forget that 1. cars then polluted a HELL of a lot more! 2 the CARS ran LEADED regular gas at the time.
Diesels are at the equivalent juncture point as the switch from leaded gas to unleaded regular gas. As most folks know, the standards for diesel will change in 2006. However ECD-1 fuel has been available for a long time (fuel that has met the forward standard for a long time) This of course could not be said for CARS of the era of the 70's at the time of transition from leaded regular to unleaded regular.
At the following prices of:
1. 5.65 per gal, Europe
2. 1.59 per gal #2 diesel, USA
3. 1.95 per gal unleaded, USA
it would seem that for the equivalent mpg(50), a diesel in the USA enjoys the lowest cost per mile: $.113, $.0318, $.039.,
BP & Arco stations in California and Chicago Metro areas currently have low-sulfur diesel (30 ppm) available at their pumps
Slight correction. the sulfur in the ECD-1 formula for CA is down to the 15 PPM. It is still at 30 PPM for the Mdiwest. I have a station very close to my home and would love to own a diesel vehicle to take advantage of the mileage. May have to buy a 3/4 ton truck to use it.
I agree - the automatic TDI is amazing, I have an automatic in my 03 Jetta TDI wagon. I haven't gotten around to enhancing it with a chip etc. yet - I'm perfectly satisfied with it's performance as-is. I've never considerd it "sluggish" in any way, the TDI low end torque complements the automatic very well. It pulls away from a stop effortlessly as well as passing at highway speeds and it'll cruise at 90 mph all day, plus return just under 40 mpg in mixed driving without resorting to any special driving techniques. My TDI shares garage space with an 01 X5 and an 04 STi - it's my favorite daily driver.
Thanks for your correction. I wasn't aware that you already have the ULSD fuel in California. I know that in one of your earlier posts you were considering getting a TDI to use at your place in Hawaii. No doubt you are also aware that once you have 7500 mile on it, you could bring it into CA and get it registered there. Isn't it ironic that you can do this with used TDIs, but you can't buy a new one, even though CA has ULSD fuel! I know that this is not the place to post TDI messages, so after this response I'll stop.
It is amazing what you can do with these things. At a recent TDI get together I had a chance to see some of the mods done to a VW Jetta TDI, automatic that bats out 295 torque at the rear wheels! If I had wanted to do that to my 5 speed manual, the first upgrade would almost have to be to something like a spec2 clutch upgrade (389 torque capacity clutch @ 500 plus labor)!
When you are ready for upgrades, before a chip, might I suggest bigger injectors? .205/.216?
Cheapest thing to do with that auto is pickup a set of stock "used" .184 injectors out of a five-speed, like I have sitting on a shelf. Lower mileage ones would be better, but they can be picked up for less than $100 shipped. With the higher pressure injection pump on the auto tdi's, it comparable to .205's on a five-speed. What's the modding options on these hybrids? When you can add 25% more hp & torque with a few hundred bucks, they might have some potential!
I doubt there will ever be a diesel hybrid for commercial use though. Diesel engines can't rev very high, therefore typically have very poor power-to-weight ratio. ICE torque spec is relatively irrelevent to hybrid cars because the electric motor can provide all the torque requirement. In fact, the first attempt at large scale use of hybrid engine was by Ferdinand Porsche while designing the Tiger heavy tank. The Doc thought electric motor was a great way to solve the torque issue (German army standardized on gasoline engine, whereas the Russians standardized on Diesel) for moving such a heavy tank and save fuel. Luckily for the Allies, the Germans did not have good battery technology back then.
>Also, Prius' city mpg is higher than >highway because there are less wind >resistance at slower speed. Not because >HSD is less efficient due to constant >engine running as some indicated.
>Dennis
There is less wind resistance for all cars at lower speeds. The real reason is the use of electic motor at lower speed from previously stored regenrative braking energy.
If wind resistence wewre the real answer , then all cars would get better city mileage than highway mileage.
Regarding John saying Toyota's main goal on the Prius was to reduce/eliminate emissions.
So it is really just your opinion then and not Toyota's official statement.
Ohterwise, you would ( or could) provide a link to Toyota's official statement.
Becuase if that were Toyota's primary goal the would have an EV Car that needed to be recharged or an even slower Prius with bigger electric motors and bigger batteries
To Oldboy, I may get a diesel for our place in Hawaii. The only cars available are VW. They sell over 50% TDI on the Big Island, according to the dealer in Kona. Our property is in Hilo and there are no VW dealers for service. That could be a problem. I am also thinking of a diesel truck as all 3 of the majors are in Hilo. I am tired of renting over there, though it is very convenient. What I really need in CA is a small truck for errands. It is so hard to justify when none of them get more than 2 or 3 miles to the gallon better than my Suburban. No savings there and I have another insurance premium. I could justify a high mileage PU that was hybrid, diesel or CNG.
Actually thinking about this, getting the .184 injectors would be the next progression! (I will sell you mine if we can get the swap coordinated! : ) I am also thinking this would require no to the least amount of IQ fiddling!
If I do an upgrade, the choice seems to me to be the .205 to .216 injectors. But really I am in not much of a hurry in that I enjoy the stock TDI. But I also probably should mention one of the stable mates to the commuter TDI is the 385 hp/#ft of torque Corvette!
But that doesn't really make sense, because the diesel already has very high torque at low speeds; it doesn't need eletric assist.
The Akinson Cycle, use by the Prius, gets better mileage than the traditional Otto cycle ICE engine, but it doesn't have any low end torque. The eletric motor augments the low end torque.
It also appears, that a Hybrid-diesel would have trouble being a full hybrid, because of diesel start-up, but might possibly be a mild hybrid, with the diesel running all the time.
Yup, since I am not contemplating a move to a big heavy idle city such as Wash D.C, Baltimore, Boston, NYC, San Francisco, or even LA LA, etc (didnt mean to leave out anyones favorite traffic jam!) , The hybrid will be on the back burner for me. I would like the 5-10 year longevity results first! I do look forward to 2006 when I think more OEM's will bring a greater offering of diesels not to mention VW probably being able to sell diesels in CA again!
I do look forward to 2006 when I think more OEM's will bring a greater offering of diesels not to mention VW probably being able to sell diesels in CA again!
And it will be a good time to move out of any and all of those traffic jam cities ;-) Either that, or contemplate second-hand diesel smoke class action law suits.
But that doesn't really make sense, because the diesel already has very high torque at low speeds; it doesn't need eletric assist.
Considering a TDI can have similar performance to the entire Prius electric/gas and get rather close economy in many real world situations (except city) it seems the electric/diesel could only improve. The biggest gain would likely be city driving. In addition, you could likely small-pint the TDI engine down substantially. I think you're taking the high torque at low speed thing too far. Real life driving means you're vastly more often operating the engine at a low speed. I would think a CVT hooked to a diesel could do wonders as well.
I would also agree with you as that is partly for the reasoning that I think the diesel hybrid would be a good mating. The diesel can not help but benefit, (just like the gasser) in having a per hr operation with a significant % of the ICE being so called "off" Just projecting off known data, I would guess that instead of 50 for the TDI, properly mated to a hybrid to expect a 27% increase or 63 mpg.
I'm thinking a diesel running at about 1200 rpm could keep the batteries charged and the electric motors on the wheels do the driving. Diesels are good at a fixed RPM such as gen sets. I think that is how they drive locomotives...
"I think an interesting statistic would be the percentage of respiratory problems in the EU countries compared to the US. It has been mentioned that diesels cause respiratory illness that gas cars do not cause. I think the truth would show the US Health problems, are caused by our lifestyle, not the air we breath. The truth is the best means of transportation is all electric charged by Nuclear power. Too bad we cannot even get that right. Pretty bad when the French and the Japanese use mostly nuclear without any problems. I do wonder where they hide the waste..."
It would be interesting, but it would have to take into consideration that they also smoke in conference rooms at least in Spain. For my 2 days of meetings, I was in a closed room with at least 2 chain smokers each day. I would expect that to have a much greater respiratory impact than breathing the air in Madrid. I agree - lifestyle is a much bigger health problem all around.
As for the waste, there is little to no nuclear waste in THOSE countries (as opposed to the US) because they "reprocess" the fuel (and we don't). In a nuke plant, the fuel doesn't get "used up". What happens is that it becomes "poisoned" with reaction byproducts like iodine and xeon. The radioactive fuel (uranium 235 and 238 and a small amount of plutonium) is still there is nearly full quantity. Reprocessing cleans the byproducts away and then you have fresh fuel again. The byproducts are still slightly radioactive, but they have a much shorter half-life and decay away.
>> How long does it take for 10000 recharge cycles.
>I did a crude calculation awhile back. It >came to 13.5 years of average driving.
Okay , I'll thake the troll bait. What kind of SWAG do you use to arrive at this calculation. A recharge every 2 days?? Where in the Gallaxy stardate did that come from??
It watts that fries not just voltage or peoepl couldn't touch a Van DeGraff genrator making 30,000 volts. The Prius has high voltage and low amerage so they can use tiny little wires. Prius battery power is fairly low, 1.5 kwhrs
they also smoke in conference rooms at least in Spain.
I think the US is ahead there at least in CA. It is nice to spend the evening in a lounge and not smell like smoke when you get home.
there is little to no nuclear waste in THOSE countries (as opposed to the US)
My question is Why? You would think the most powerful country on earth could do as well as those countries do with nuclear. I have been led to believe that you have to have all this horrible waste with any kind of nuclear. Thanks for enlightening me.
The idle-off fuel saving for diesel will be much less, per centage wise, than for gasoline SI engines. Reason being that you can only lean out the fuel supply that far on SI engines before detonation takes place, whereas for diesel (CI engines) detonation is how they operate. In cold winter nights, it's common practice for diesel truck drivers to leave engines running overnight; the fuel consumption per hour is minimal.
I'm thinking a diesel running at about 1200 rpm could keep the batteries charged and the electric motors on the wheels do the driving. Diesels are good at a fixed RPM such as gen sets. I think that is how they drive locomotives...
A gasoline engine (SI) running at higher rpm producing the same amount of power as the CI engine running at 1200rpm can be made of much smaller displacement and weigh much less. Locomotive application is very different in that locomotive being the one supplying the only driving wheels in a train of hundred-plus wheels, the additional weight of diesel engine is actually advantageous for providing traction, and the rolling friction is minimal on the metal tracks. Whereas for automobile applications, power-to-weight ratio of the engine is a very important consideration (the same reason why the steam engine automobile was not a great success despite its super smooth ride).
there is little to no nuclear waste in THOSE countries (as opposed to the US)
My question is Why? You would think the most powerful country on earth could do as well as those countries do with nuclear. I have been led to believe that you have to have all this horrible waste with any kind of nuclear. Thanks for enlightening me.
You were given the wrong answer. There is no free lunch with nuclear fuel. France and Japan just have more pliant voters. Nuclear generation is great; would you like to have a plant in your back yard for the greater good? ;-) The average French and Japanese citizen are just more willing to bend to "common good" in answering that question. High radiation level waste fuel in France is routinely transported by rail; try that in the States. If you want to find out "how they do it," here's a link:
would you like to have a plant in your back yard for the greater good?/b
As a matter of fact I do have. The San Onofre Nuclear plant was one of the first in the world. I went through it while in high school back in the late 1950s. It has produced billions of KWHs of electricity. Just because we did not have our ducks in a row at 3 mile Island we have stuck our heads in the sand and become totally dependent on the Middle East for energy. I think the answer I got from ratbert1 was fairly accurate in light of the article you posted. I think the real problem is we want cheap energy, super clean air and no risk. That is a Utopian view of the real world.
"If wind resistence wewre the real answer , then all cars would get better city mileage than highway mileage."
All car would get better mileage in the city, if the engine efficiency is the same at different load when traveling at constant speed. Otto cycle engines are the most efficient at full throttle and least efficient at a small partial loads.
For example, an Otto cycle engine that is rated for 100hp with peak 32% efficiency means that at full load(burn gas as much as possible with the most amount of air), 32% of energy from gas goes to turn the crank shaft. The rest 68% is loss as heat.
When the same engine is making only 10hp(put some gas and block most of the air intake hole), efficiency would drop to probably 16%(don't quote me on it). At partial load, more gas is wasted as heat than doing the actual work. This is the design flaw of Otto cycle engines. Many technologies were developed to reduce partial power and pumping loss problems such as V-TEC, VVT-i, VCM, etc...
Partial power and pumping loss problems plus more wasted energy in the brake pads make traditional car very inefficient in the city. HSD greatly reduces those problems with the use of Atkinson cycle engine with electric regenerative motors. There is not much that could be done for the waste of energy pushing the wind on the highway other than 0.26 Cd aerodynamic design.
Believe it or not, diesel engines do not suffer much from those inefficiencies. So, it would be best to look at diesel engine and ask why diesel cars still get lower in city than highway?
The energy leak is the automatic transmission and break pads. In city driving, those leaks make the worse case for diesel cars. Manual transmission diesel cars seem to get city and high mileage about the same regardless of wasted energy on the brake pads. So, it seem that wasted energy on the brake pads in the city would equal to the wind resistence on the highway.
In conclusion, HSD reduces energy wasted on the brakes with regen braking makes it's city mileage above the highway. Note: Planetary E-CVT is as efficient as manual tranny even in city driving. Planetary E-CVT superiority is in the response time when manual tranny slug during shifting, even worse, engine power get disconnected from the wheels. I am too lazy to reorganize my thoughts so, find your easiest way to understant this post. =P
OK, I believe you and John know the most about the Prius. I have a question about the CVT. If it is a modern version of the old centrifugal clutch, how can it be as efficient as a straight manual transmission which is nearly 100% efficient less any clutch slippage.
No diesel supporter has any actual hard-data available. They simply haven't bothered documenting their MPG (likely due to not having any competition until recently). So all we have to work with is spot-checks. And due to human nature, those numbers would tend to favor the favorable efficiency opportunities.
Current hybrid supporters are a rather obsessive breed; they document their MPG in detail on spreadsheets. So we have a wealth of real-world data to analyze.
A manual transmission is the preferred choice among diesel supporters. And because of that fact, they have difficulty accepting the reality the that preferred choice for the average consumer is a transmission that doesn't require shifting... which causes notably lower MPG than a manual does... which sours the appeal for a diesel.
So naturally, when hybrid supporters point out that their vehicle doesn't require shifting, the diesel supporters quickly try to change the discussion topic.
Some diesel supporters have admitted that they couldn't care less about NOx (smog) emissions. So the fact that the EPA heavily restricts sales of diesels due to that level of pollution, they go into denial-mode. And when hybrid supporters point out that a diesel vehicle capable of achieving a SULEV emission rating (like Prius offers) would be an acceptable solution, they ignore the statement entirely... since a SULEV is 90% cleaner (less smog) than the average vehicle sold in 2003 in the United States and a diesel is 1000% (10 times) dirtier with respect to NOx.
Other diesel supporters are quite up-front about the current state of the NOx emissions and patiently await the low-sulfur diesel to help solve that problem. However, when you ask whether the diesel vehicles will ultimately be able to achieve a SULEV rating, their reply is subdued at best. No reply at all is rather common too.
Biodiesel is an interesting topic. It eliminates our dependence on oil; however, it actually increases NOx (smog) emissions. So rather than being 1000% dirtier, the amount increases to 1100%.
The fatal flaw of diesel supporters is that they absolutely, positively refuse to acknowledge the big picture. Long-Term plans and High-Volume acceptance is something they avoid at all costs. Denial of that actuality is a very bitter pill for them to swallow. They don’t want to admit that hybrid costs are about to drop quite a bit as a result of increased production and the variety of models being offered.
60 million new vehicles are sold each vehicle worldwide. The population is growing at a rapid rate. The draw toward consumption in the underdeveloped countries is escalating at a frightening rate. Smog continues to get worse. Breathing-related health problems are becoming common. Hybrid supporters know that. They also know that achieving the SULEV emission rating with a HSD-equipped hybrid is no big deal. The hybrid Highlander SUV achieves it. Prius surpasses it.
Diesel supporters like to gloss over the fact that driving any way other than highway-cruising causes a diesel vehicle’s MPG to suffer horribly.
Stop & Slow traffic is a chronic problem in ever metropolitan area. Hybrids (especially the “full” type, like Prius) thrive in those conditions. So rather than suffering from wasting so much fuel and contributing so much to smog like a diesel does, hybrid owners just sit there with a smug look on their face... knowing the design of their propulsion system is grossly superior to one that requires the engine to run non-stop.
In conclusion (to summarize this summary), diesel supporters simply don’t have a case against hybrids... especially when you eventually point out that a hybrid could use a diesel engine.
"And when hybrid supporters point out that a diesel vehicle capable of achieving a SULEV emission rating (like Prius offers) would be an acceptable solution, they ignore the statement entirely... since a SULEV is 90% cleaner (less smog) than the average vehicle sold in 2003 in the United States and a diesel is 1000% (10 times) dirtier with respect to NOx."
Oh, Prius surpasses SULEV standard by far! In fact, it easily surpass all three Japan, Europe, and US ultra low emission standards, making the first of it's kind.
"Biodiesel is an interesting topic. It eliminates our dependence on oil; however, it actually increases NOx (smog) emissions."
On top of that, biodesel also reduces fuel economy by up to 10%.
"I have a question about the CVT. If it is a modern version of the old centrifugal clutch, how can it be as efficient as a straight manual transmission which is nearly 100% efficient less any clutch slippage."
Because it is permently connected with ball bearing Planetary gearset. It never slips and always engaged. The drivetrain adjust RPM(speed) of electric motors, engine, or all, to continously vary the output power and speed of the car.
Just because we did not have our ducks in a row at 3 mile Island we have stuck our heads in the sand and become totally dependent on the Middle East for energy.
Good rhetoric, but far from the truth. Domestic gas and oil production are much less expensive than nuclear power plants, especially when nuclear waste disposal is taken into account. The choice is not either nuclear or Middle East.
I think the answer I got from ratbert1 was fairly accurate in light of the article you posted.
Nope. "Reprocess" is a great term for shoving all concerns under the rug. If you read the two links I cited, you'd realize that the Japanese and French work something like this: Japanse ship some of their waste to France to process; even the French, at the forefront of nuclear reprocessing (with all the government subsidies), haven't figured out how to dispose of the final result of reprocess. They are still studying four possible candidates for permanent dumping ground; in other words, still keeping the highly dangerous stuff at the nuclear power plant or reprocessing plant. Then you wonder why they keep the reprocessing plant at Cherbourg, at the tip of Cotentin Penninsula; it's not exactly a safe business, and even the French know it.
I think the real problem is we want cheap energy, super clean air and no risk. That is a Utopian view of the real world.
Actually, I don't mind natural gas power generation at all; it's plenty clean enough for me. The real utopian view is that, after three-mile-island, after Chernobyl, after West Valley, and numerous other nuclear accidents all around the world, even in the face of complete lack of any working permanent disposal solution after half a century of nuclear power industry after billions of dollar spent, somehow the next time will be all fine and dandy. It's like the old joke about the socialist idealist, when confronted with Stalin's 60 million victims, Mao's 40 million victims, Pol Pot's nearly a third of entire Cambodian population dead in socialist experiements, well, they just didn't have the "right" leader ;-)
"No diesel supporter has any actual hard-data available"
Sort of like the hard data that we've been asking for on the cost of a Prius.....but we won't go there.
I have documented my MPG, I calculate it each trip to the pump, and I average 44mpg combined driving. I'm sorry that I don't need to keep my data in a spreadsheet on the computer to impress people. I know what I average and I know I'm accurate to within a couple of percent (my fuel tank holds a set amount..and the same amount each time). And your "real world data", as we have pointed out before, is inaccurate as you have no idea how much fuel you are starting with in your "bladder" and you have no idea what the wasted capacity of the bladder is each time you fill up...those will always be unknowns, so it doesn't matter how many consecutive tanks you "calculate" it will always be inaccurate. Toyota even stated that the "fill to" capacity varies by ~17%, how can you get accurate data with a 17% spread?
"A manual transmission is the preferred choice among diesel supporters" "...when hybrid supporters point out that their vehicle doesn't require shifting..."
Who cares if I have to shift and you don't? FACT of the matter is we are both average near the same MPG. You work with what you have and I'll work with what I have. It was your CHOICE to get an "automatic" transmission and it was my CHOICE to get a tranny that shifts...beauty of being American. I don't have to change the subject about transmissions, I'll talk about my manual tranny all you want. But I can't speak for the TDI owners with Auto tranny's....and for that matter, neither can you.
"Some diesel supporters have admitted that they couldn't care less about NOx (smog) emissions"
Can't say that my mind has changed about NOx, it is not a problem for me...once again, by CHOICE.
"Biodiesel is an interesting topic."
Sure is, don't know too much about it myself, part of what makes it so interesting.
"Long-Term plans and High-Volume acceptance..." "They don’t want to admit that hybrid costs are about to drop quite a bit as a result of increased production..."
All speculation at this point. You, my friend, are no soothsayer and cannot predict the future any better than I. Besides, If I have customers that are willing to pay OVER the MSRP sticker for a vehicle, why on earth would I drop the price by $100, let alone $5000? If they are paying OVER the sticker now, with supply being short, they will pay within $700 of the current sticker when supply is caught up.
"60 million new vehicles are sold each vehicle worldwide."
Sorry, this one just made no sense at all to me.
"...driving any way other than highway-cruising causes a diesel vehicle’s MPG to suffer horribly."
"Horribly" is a rather strong word isn't it? MY lowest MPG in 100% city (granted my city isn't NY, ATL, or Chicago) has been 41mpg. I wouldn't call 41mpg suffering horribly. My best mileage at 100% hwy was 52mpg....we're talk of worst to best being a difference of 11MPG (seems to me to be the same spread that EPA estimates for the Prius...although A LOT Prius owners aren't even making the estimates). I wouldn't cosider that suffering horribly, and anyone who gets better than 35mpg in 100% city is doing alright in my book.
"Stop & Slow traffic is a chronic problem in ever metropolitan area."
Sure is, one of the reasons I choose to no longer live in a metropolitan area.
"So rather than suffering from wasting so much fuel..."
...I moved to a more rural area that still provides me will all the comforts of "big city" life.
"...hybrid owners just sit there with a smug look on their face..."
Probably not all Hybrid owners...I guarantee some aren't as self righteous as others...
Anyway, now that I am done answering your post, I wanted to ask you this....have you run out of arguments? The only reason I ask is that you gone from explaing facts about Hybrids..namely the Prius...to attacking those who don't have the same viewpoint as you (i.e. diesel supporters). You do realize that that is (A) No way to win a debate (if I remember correctly, you were just practicing your debating skills here), (B) Not a very effective way of enlightening others to your point of view (in fact, some people might write you off after that), and (C) just plain rude.
Excellent response to John's essay against diesels. I quite agree with all you have said. I would add that once we have ULSD fuel available across the USA, diesel emissions including NOx will be taken care of and diesels should meet even CARB's tough standards.
While none of us knows what the future will be, it appears that hybrid production is going to be very limited for several years due to a lack of battery packs. There are plenty of clean diesel cars out there though. Certainly they have already proven to be very popular in Europe. Once we have ULSD fuel here I suspect we will be seeing a lot of them coming to the USA.
Both hybrids and diesels offer more fuel efficiency than gassers, and in time they will have a much bigger share of the US car market than we see now. There will be a place for hybrids, namely crowded cities. However I think that diesels will prove to be the car of choice for many people because (A) they have proven to be very durable, and (B) they can be produced at lower cost than comparable hybrids, and therefore they can be sold at lower prices.
Finally I would say that it is important that we not become so set for or against one or the other that we try to dictate what other people should drive, but rather let them have choices.
Though they do no suggest towing, coastal dave does make a towing kit. I have seen the Prius tow up to 1200 pounds. Heck.. why would anyone eve tow with a sedan? It may make sense to buy a CRV or a more fuel efficient small SUV.
I don't envision diesels gaining acceptance in this country until someone puts out a good ad campaign. The Prius was lucky enough to take a free ride on all the good press. There are only a miniscule amount of diesel cars on the road today in the US (compared to the ratio of gas to oil burners in Europe). A lot of people probably remember the fiasco when GM coverted gas engines into diesel engines in the late 70's early 80's. Mercedes and VW have made wonderful strides in diesel technology and still believe that if marketed correctly will compete harmoniously with hybrids. At least we'll be given good choices.
"My question is Why? You would think the most powerful country on earth could do as well as those countries do with nuclear. I have been led to believe that you have to have all this horrible waste with any kind of nuclear. Thanks for enlightening me."
Why? Because we here in the USA have a battery of lawyers supporting groups like Greenpeace and Earth First. Anytime a nuke plant is planned or a reprocessing facility is considered, they drive up the cost and time for planning and construction to the point where it's not financially feasible anymore. Because of that, a nuke plant costs billions to erect and produces over 1000MW. Compare that to a coal or gas plant that probably costs a couple hundred million at the most and produces something like 500MW. So we in the USA DO have terrible nuclear fuel waste and it's because activists have driven the cost of a reprocessing plant up to the point where it's actually cheaper to store the spent fuel.
Bus as for Russia, they are, unfortunately, the most nuclear polluted country on the globe. Things that most people have no idea about. They are even having an effect on the arctic. I could go on for a LONG time about this, but this is not the place. instead, check out the following: http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm (IMHO, very spooky and actually brought tears to my eyes. "inside" info of the current area around chernobyl) http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/tomsk-7_nuc.htm
> your "real world data", as we have pointed out before, is inaccurate
Are you intentionally twisting the facts to apply the single-tank-only aspect my 3-year average? Because you are absolutely WRONG!
Any error caused by the bladder quickly balances out over the course of just a few tank measurements.
Total gas used and total distance traveled is always dead-on when multiple tanks are taken into account.
> 60 million new vehicles are sold each vehicle worldwide."
The second "vehicle" should be the word "year" instead. But since that is such a heavily published statistic, you should have known that already. It is the whole point of looking at the big picture, not just what *YOU* want.
> have you run out of arguments?
None of those are arguments. You obviously missed the point.
The point is to end the MISCONCEPTIONS that have been spread here!
Diesel compresses diffrent especially turbo diesel. 19:1 is pretty normal.
However, the Prius has a 13:1 compression which is extremely high for a gasoline engine. Most gasolince (ICE) are in the range 9-10.5 In the muscle car era the very high compression engines were 11:1 The higher compression engines needed the premium fuel to prevent pinging, but the Prius uses regular. Electronic engine managmeent now prevents pinging in most cases. And maybe the Prius high compression ratio has something to do with it being an Atkinson cycle instead of an Otto cycle.
But it certtainly is a new concern, Prius ICE failure.
I too am tire of bhearing about one Prius use as a cab being an indicator of long life for all Prius batteries.
Also, You present interesting input, please continue.
I had a 70 Oldsmobile 442 and the clutch used to need to be replaced once a year. However , the problem ( besides my driving style at the time) was like other muscle cars Oldsmobile just put a big engine in a car without upgrading the other components such as the clutch , drivetrain and brakes. When you do that the weak link fails.
"Any error caused by the bladder quickly balances out over the course of just a few tank measurements"
...and exactly how are the errors balanced oout when there are ALWAYS unknowns...namely the unknown of how much fuel was in the bladder to begin with. If you KNEW there was 1.4 gallons in there before you started pumping...and you filled the tank with 10 gallons.....then you would KNOW that there was a wasted capacity of .5 gallons, BUT since there is NO WAY to calculate how much you started with and NO WAY to calculate how much capacity is left in the bladder after "fill-up"...then there is NO WAY to accurately calculate fuel mileage at the pump. NO MATTER HOW MANY consecutive tanks you "calculate". If you are calculating the "average" of all the tanks in a given time...then what you have is an accurate average of inaccurate data......which is INACCURATE because there are too many unknown variables.
You don't know how much gas you've used, because you don't know how much is in there to begin with, you don't know how much gas you've actaully used during any particular segment and you don't know how much capacity is wasted...all you know is how much you've pumped and how many miles you've gone. Hardly scientific. I don't think that you can "quickly" balance that out...you will need a few months of data..not just a few tanks. And I know you have three years of data...but you are "calculating" every few tanks instead of long term.
I'm not spreading misconceptions John, I just want to know what mathematical equation your are using that miraculously computes all of the unknowns. You have (2) knowns (the amount that you put into the bladder and the amount of miles driven) and (2) unknowns (the amount of fuel in the bladder before you start pumping..and the wasted capacity of the bladder after pumping). Your two knowns CANNOT be computed to give you your two unknowns.....therefore resulting in flawed data.
I did see that pictorial essay on the young ladies motorcycle trip through the Chernobyl waste land. Very powerful.. I also agree with you that roadblocks to progress in this country have shackled us to the point that we have become a lesser power. The environmentalist have blocked not only nuclear power facilities. They have blocked any new refineries in CA since the early 1970s contributing to the highest gas prices in the US. We have agencies like CARB unevenly doling out their ignorance. Letting a giant caterpillar dump more pollution into the air than 100s of VW TDI automobiles. They even block geo-thermal plants. What could be cleaner than getting steam from the earth. It is used any place in the world that has geo-thermal. By the time the legislators, litigators and environmentalists get done with anything it costs the US consumer way more than it should. Or we send it off to be made in a more friendly country. That is why GM, Ford & chrysler are becoming more foriegn based. We are an unfriendly business environment.
TOTAL GALLONS PUMPED divided by TOTAL DISTANCE TRAVELED is a simple calculation that is very accurate.
The 1,318 gallons of gas I pumped into my 2001 Prius over the course of 3 years and 59,827 miles are not affected by an error from the very first fillup, not knowing exactly where "full" was initially. It is a negliable amount. Hello!
You don't know how much gas you've used, because you don't know how much is in there to begin with.
That is precisely why the writer in the USA Today did not come up with the MPG the Prius owners wanted to see. It may be a Toyota smoke & mirror trick. I do think if you document your mileage over a 6 month period, actual gallons purchased and actual miles driven. It should be a fairly accurate overall mileage. You will never convince me that readout in the vehicle is very accurate. Don't get me wrong I like that MPG read-out. I had it in a rental car in Oregon last month. I kept close record of the gas mileage and the read-out was within 2 MPG of the actual consumption over 1350 miles. Oh and that was a very nice Ford Taurus that got 27.6 mpg for that whole trip around the state of Oregon.
Another misconception that gets spread quite a bit is: "by living in a rural area, my pollution isn't hurting anyone".
Bull!
Vacationing up in Northern Minnesota has taught me a lot. I remember back in the 70's asking why there was always piles of foam on the shore. The reply was that the limestone in the lake bed was reacting with the pollution from the boat engines to help cleanse the water. And by looking at the photos of me playing in that water back then, I see that it used to be crystal clear. It isn't anymore. That foam is gone too. The limestone has been completely consumed. There is nothing available to cleanse anymore.
The air in rural areas will slowly grow more and more dirty. That natural resistance will be lost due to quite a number of factors. The biggest of which is just ordinary wind. It circulates air at fantastic rates. A storm system can blow through a metro area in just an hour, pushing the metro pollution into already weakened rural areas.
It will only get worse as time proceeds.
The NOx (smog) emissions much be significantly reduced. You can just runaway from the problem by moving away from urban areas.
Comments
Yes, I think a lot of folks would like to brand/label the diesel with those 70's stereotypes. Yet those very same folks, in addition forget that 1. cars then polluted a HELL of a lot more! 2 the CARS ran LEADED regular gas at the time.
Diesels are at the equivalent juncture point as the switch from leaded gas to unleaded regular gas. As most folks know, the standards for diesel will change in 2006. However ECD-1 fuel has been available for a long time (fuel that has met the forward standard for a long time) This of course could not be said for CARS of the era of the 70's at the time of transition from leaded regular to unleaded regular.
At the following prices of:
1. 5.65 per gal, Europe
2. 1.59 per gal #2 diesel, USA
3. 1.95 per gal unleaded, USA
it would seem that for the equivalent mpg(50), a diesel in the USA enjoys the lowest cost per mile: $.113, $.0318, $.039.,
I am probably in the extreme minority for:
1. pointing this out
2. "walking the walk"
Slight correction. the sulfur in the ECD-1 formula for CA is down to the 15 PPM. It is still at 30 PPM for the Mdiwest.
I have a station very close to my home and would love to own a diesel vehicle to take advantage of the mileage. May have to buy a 3/4 ton truck to use it.
When you are ready for upgrades, before a chip, might I suggest bigger injectors? .205/.216?
>highway because there are less wind
>resistance at slower speed. Not because
>HSD is less efficient due to constant
>engine running as some indicated.
>Dennis
There is less wind resistance for all cars at lower speeds. The real reason is the use of electic motor at lower speed from previously stored regenrative braking energy.
If wind resistence wewre the real answer , then all cars would get better city mileage than highway mileage.
YMMV,
MidCow
So it is really just your opinion then and not Toyota's official statement.
Ohterwise, you would ( or could) provide a link to Toyota's official statement.
Becuase if that were Toyota's primary goal the would have an EV Car that needed to be recharged or an even slower Prius with bigger electric motors and bigger batteries
YMMV,
MidCow
The design clearly reveals the intent. Study it!
JOHN
I may get a diesel for our place in Hawaii. The only cars available are VW. They sell over 50% TDI on the Big Island, according to the dealer in Kona. Our property is in Hilo and there are no VW dealers for service. That could be a problem. I am also thinking of a diesel truck as all 3 of the majors are in Hilo. I am tired of renting over there, though it is very convenient. What I really need in CA is a small truck for errands. It is so hard to justify when none of them get more than 2 or 3 miles to the gallon better than my Suburban. No savings there and I have another insurance premium. I could justify a high mileage PU that was hybrid, diesel or CNG.
If I do an upgrade, the choice seems to me to be the .205 to .216 injectors. But really I am in not much of a hurry in that I enjoy the stock TDI. But I also probably should mention one of the stable mates to the commuter TDI is the 385 hp/#ft of torque Corvette!
The Akinson Cycle, use by the Prius, gets better mileage than the traditional Otto cycle ICE engine, but it doesn't have any low end torque. The eletric motor augments the low end torque.
It also appears, that a Hybrid-diesel would have trouble being a full hybrid, because of diesel start-up, but might possibly be a mild hybrid, with the diesel running all the time.
YMMV,
MidCow
And it will be a good time to move out of any and all of those traffic jam cities ;-) Either that, or contemplate second-hand diesel smoke class action law suits.
Considering a TDI can have similar performance to the entire Prius electric/gas and get rather close economy in many real world situations (except city) it seems the electric/diesel could only improve. The biggest gain would likely be city driving. In addition, you could likely small-pint the TDI engine down substantially. I think you're taking the high torque at low speed thing too far. Real life driving means you're vastly more often operating the engine at a low speed. I would think a CVT hooked to a diesel could do wonders as well.
It would be interesting, but it would have to take into consideration that they also smoke in conference rooms at least in Spain. For my 2 days of meetings, I was in a closed room with at least 2 chain smokers each day. I would expect that to have a much greater respiratory impact than breathing the air in Madrid. I agree - lifestyle is a much bigger health problem all around.
As for the waste, there is little to no nuclear waste in THOSE countries (as opposed to the US) because they "reprocess" the fuel (and we don't). In a nuke plant, the fuel doesn't get "used up". What happens is that it becomes "poisoned" with reaction byproducts like iodine and xeon. The radioactive fuel (uranium 235 and 238 and a small amount of plutonium) is still there is nearly full quantity. Reprocessing cleans the byproducts away and then you have fresh fuel again. The byproducts are still slightly radioactive, but they have a much shorter half-life and decay away.
>I did a crude calculation awhile back. It
>came to 13.5 years of average driving.
Okay , I'll thake the troll bait. What kind of SWAG do you use to arrive at this calculation. A recharge every 2 days?? Where in the Gallaxy stardate did that come from??
YMMV,
MidCow
The Prius will not be your electric chair!
YMMV,
MidCow
I think the US is ahead there at least in CA. It is nice to spend the evening in a lounge and not smell like smoke when you get home.
there is little to no nuclear waste in THOSE countries (as opposed to the US)
My question is Why? You would think the most powerful country on earth could do as well as those countries do with nuclear. I have been led to believe that you have to have all this horrible waste with any kind of nuclear. Thanks for enlightening me.
A gasoline engine (SI) running at higher rpm producing the same amount of power as the CI engine running at 1200rpm can be made of much smaller displacement and weigh much less. Locomotive application is very different in that locomotive being the one supplying the only driving wheels in a train of hundred-plus wheels, the additional weight of diesel engine is actually advantageous for providing traction, and the rolling friction is minimal on the metal tracks. Whereas for automobile applications, power-to-weight ratio of the engine is a very important consideration (the same reason why the steam engine automobile was not a great success despite its super smooth ride).
My question is Why? You would think the most powerful country on earth could do as well as those countries do with nuclear. I have been led to believe that you have to have all this horrible waste with any kind of nuclear. Thanks for enlightening me.
You were given the wrong answer. There is no free lunch with nuclear fuel. France and Japan just have more pliant voters. Nuclear generation is great; would you like to have a plant in your back yard for the greater good? ;-) The average French and Japanese citizen are just more willing to bend to "common good" in answering that question. High radiation level waste fuel in France is routinely transported by rail; try that in the States. If you want to find out "how they do it," here's a link:
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/esnr/forfuel.htm#spent
and here's a link on the perils of reprocessing:
http://www.ccnr.org/AECL_plute.html
What kind of mods to do you have besides the Upsolute chip ?
YMMV,
MidCow
As a matter of fact I do have. The San Onofre Nuclear plant was one of the first in the world. I went through it while in high school back in the late 1950s. It has produced billions of KWHs of electricity. Just because we did not have our ducks in a row at 3 mile Island we have stuck our heads in the sand and become totally dependent on the Middle East for energy. I think the answer I got from ratbert1 was fairly accurate in light of the article you posted. I think the real problem is we want cheap energy, super clean air and no risk. That is a Utopian view of the real world.
All car would get better mileage in the city, if the engine efficiency is the same at different load when traveling at constant speed. Otto cycle engines are the most efficient at full throttle and least efficient at a small partial loads.
For example, an Otto cycle engine that is rated for 100hp with peak 32% efficiency means that at full load(burn gas as much as possible with the most amount of air), 32% of energy from gas goes to turn the crank shaft. The rest 68% is loss as heat.
When the same engine is making only 10hp(put some gas and block most of the air intake hole), efficiency would drop to probably 16%(don't quote me on it). At partial load, more gas is wasted as heat than doing the actual work. This is the design flaw of Otto cycle engines. Many technologies were developed to reduce partial power and pumping loss problems such as V-TEC, VVT-i, VCM, etc...
Partial power and pumping loss problems plus more wasted energy in the brake pads make traditional car very inefficient in the city. HSD greatly reduces those problems with the use of Atkinson cycle engine with electric regenerative motors. There is not much that could be done for the waste of energy pushing the wind on the highway other than 0.26 Cd aerodynamic design.
Believe it or not, diesel engines do not suffer much from those inefficiencies. So, it would be best to look at diesel engine and ask why diesel cars still get lower in city than highway?
The energy leak is the automatic transmission and break pads. In city driving, those leaks make the worse case for diesel cars. Manual transmission diesel cars seem to get city and high mileage about the same regardless of wasted energy on the brake pads. So, it seem that wasted energy on the brake pads in the city would equal to the wind resistence on the highway.
In conclusion, HSD reduces energy wasted on the brakes with regen braking makes it's city mileage above the highway. Note: Planetary E-CVT is as efficient as manual tranny even in city driving. Planetary E-CVT superiority is in the response time when manual tranny slug during shifting, even worse, engine power get disconnected from the wheels. I am too lazy to reorganize my thoughts so, find your easiest way to understant this post. =P
Dennis
I have a question about the CVT. If it is a modern version of the old centrifugal clutch, how can it be as efficient as a straight manual transmission which is nearly 100% efficient less any clutch slippage.
Current hybrid supporters are a rather obsessive breed; they document their MPG in detail on spreadsheets. So we have a wealth of real-world data to analyze.
A manual transmission is the preferred choice among diesel supporters. And because of that fact, they have difficulty accepting the reality the that preferred choice for the average consumer is a transmission that doesn't require shifting... which causes notably lower MPG than a manual does... which sours the appeal for a diesel.
So naturally, when hybrid supporters point out that their vehicle doesn't require shifting, the diesel supporters quickly try to change the discussion topic.
Some diesel supporters have admitted that they couldn't care less about NOx (smog) emissions. So the fact that the EPA heavily restricts sales of diesels due to that level of pollution, they go into denial-mode. And when hybrid supporters point out that a diesel vehicle capable of achieving a SULEV emission rating (like Prius offers) would be an acceptable solution, they ignore the statement entirely... since a SULEV is 90% cleaner (less smog) than the average vehicle sold in 2003 in the United States and a diesel is 1000% (10 times) dirtier with respect to NOx.
Other diesel supporters are quite up-front about the current state of the NOx emissions and patiently await the low-sulfur diesel to help solve that problem. However, when you ask whether the diesel vehicles will ultimately be able to achieve a SULEV rating, their reply is subdued at best. No reply at all is rather common too.
Biodiesel is an interesting topic. It eliminates our dependence on oil; however, it actually increases NOx (smog) emissions. So rather than being 1000% dirtier, the amount increases to 1100%.
The fatal flaw of diesel supporters is that they absolutely, positively refuse to acknowledge the big picture. Long-Term plans and High-Volume acceptance is something they avoid at all costs. Denial of that actuality is a very bitter pill for them to swallow. They don’t want to admit that hybrid costs are about to drop quite a bit as a result of increased production and the variety of models being offered.
60 million new vehicles are sold each vehicle worldwide. The population is growing at a rapid rate. The draw toward consumption in the underdeveloped countries is escalating at a frightening rate. Smog continues to get worse. Breathing-related health problems are becoming common. Hybrid supporters know that. They also know that achieving the SULEV emission rating with a HSD-equipped hybrid is no big deal. The hybrid Highlander SUV achieves it. Prius surpasses it.
Diesel supporters like to gloss over the fact that driving any way other than highway-cruising causes a diesel vehicle’s MPG to suffer horribly.
Stop & Slow traffic is a chronic problem in ever metropolitan area. Hybrids (especially the “full” type, like Prius) thrive in those conditions. So rather than suffering from wasting so much fuel and contributing so much to smog like a diesel does, hybrid owners just sit there with a smug look on their face... knowing the design of their propulsion system is grossly superior to one that requires the engine to run non-stop.
In conclusion (to summarize this summary), diesel supporters simply don’t have a case against hybrids... especially when you eventually point out that a hybrid could use a diesel engine.
JOHN
Oh, Prius surpasses SULEV standard by far! In fact, it easily surpass all three Japan, Europe, and US ultra low emission standards, making the first of it's kind.
"Biodiesel is an interesting topic. It eliminates our dependence on oil; however, it actually increases NOx (smog) emissions."
On top of that, biodesel also reduces fuel economy by up to 10%.
Dennis
Because it is permently connected with ball bearing Planetary gearset. It never slips and always engaged. The drivetrain adjust RPM(speed) of electric motors, engine, or all, to continously vary the output power and speed of the car.
Dennis
Good rhetoric, but far from the truth. Domestic gas and oil production are much less expensive than nuclear power plants, especially when nuclear waste disposal is taken into account. The choice is not either nuclear or Middle East.
I think the answer I got from ratbert1 was fairly accurate in light of the article you posted.
Nope. "Reprocess" is a great term for shoving all concerns under the rug. If you read the two links I cited, you'd realize that the Japanese and French work something like this: Japanse ship some of their waste to France to process; even the French, at the forefront of nuclear reprocessing (with all the government subsidies), haven't figured out how to dispose of the final result of reprocess. They are still studying four possible candidates for permanent dumping ground; in other words, still keeping the highly dangerous stuff at the nuclear power plant or reprocessing plant. Then you wonder why they keep the reprocessing plant at Cherbourg, at the tip of Cotentin Penninsula; it's not exactly a safe business, and even the French know it.
I think the real problem is we want cheap energy, super clean air and no risk. That is a Utopian view of the real world.
Actually, I don't mind natural gas power generation at all; it's plenty clean enough for me. The real utopian view is that, after three-mile-island, after Chernobyl, after West Valley, and numerous other nuclear accidents all around the world, even in the face of complete lack of any working permanent disposal solution after half a century of nuclear power industry after billions of dollar spent, somehow the next time will be all fine and dandy. It's like the old joke about the socialist idealist, when confronted with Stalin's 60 million victims, Mao's 40 million victims, Pol Pot's nearly a third of entire Cambodian population dead in socialist experiements, well, they just didn't have the "right" leader ;-)
A bit more balance view as opposed to John's unbalanced views.
The Prius can not tow anything.
Sort of like the hard data that we've been asking for on the cost of a Prius.....but we won't go there.
I have documented my MPG, I calculate it each trip to the pump, and I average 44mpg combined driving. I'm sorry that I don't need to keep my data in a spreadsheet on the computer to impress people. I know what I average and I know I'm accurate to within a couple of percent (my fuel tank holds a set amount..and the same amount each time). And your "real world data", as we have pointed out before, is inaccurate as you have no idea how much fuel you are starting with in your "bladder" and you have no idea what the wasted capacity of the bladder is each time you fill up...those will always be unknowns, so it doesn't matter how many consecutive tanks you "calculate" it will always be inaccurate. Toyota even stated that the "fill to" capacity varies by ~17%, how can you get accurate data with a 17% spread?
"A manual transmission is the preferred choice among diesel supporters"
"...when hybrid supporters point out that their vehicle doesn't require shifting..."
Who cares if I have to shift and you don't? FACT of the matter is we are both average near the same MPG. You work with what you have and I'll work with what I have. It was your CHOICE to get an "automatic" transmission and it was my CHOICE to get a tranny that shifts...beauty of being American. I don't have to change the subject about transmissions, I'll talk about my manual tranny all you want. But I can't speak for the TDI owners with Auto tranny's....and for that matter, neither can you.
"Some diesel supporters have admitted that they couldn't care less about NOx (smog) emissions"
Can't say that my mind has changed about NOx, it is not a problem for me...once again, by CHOICE.
"Biodiesel is an interesting topic."
Sure is, don't know too much about it myself, part of what makes it so interesting.
"Long-Term plans and High-Volume acceptance..."
"They don’t want to admit that hybrid costs are about to drop quite a bit as a result of increased production..."
All speculation at this point. You, my friend, are no soothsayer and cannot predict the future any better than I. Besides, If I have customers that are willing to pay OVER the MSRP sticker for a vehicle, why on earth would I drop the price by $100, let alone $5000? If they are paying OVER the sticker now, with supply being short, they will pay within $700 of the current sticker when supply is caught up.
"60 million new vehicles are sold each vehicle worldwide."
Sorry, this one just made no sense at all to me.
"...driving any way other than highway-cruising causes a diesel vehicle’s MPG to suffer horribly."
"Horribly" is a rather strong word isn't it? MY lowest MPG in 100% city (granted my city isn't NY, ATL, or Chicago) has been 41mpg. I wouldn't call 41mpg suffering horribly. My best mileage at 100% hwy was 52mpg....we're talk of worst to best being a difference of 11MPG (seems to me to be the same spread that EPA estimates for the Prius...although A LOT Prius owners aren't even making the estimates). I wouldn't cosider that suffering horribly, and anyone who gets better than 35mpg in 100% city is doing alright in my book.
"Stop & Slow traffic is a chronic problem in ever metropolitan area."
Sure is, one of the reasons I choose to no longer live in a metropolitan area.
"So rather than suffering from wasting so much fuel..."
...I moved to a more rural area that still provides me will all the comforts of "big city" life.
"...hybrid owners just sit there with a smug look on their face..."
Probably not all Hybrid owners...I guarantee some aren't as self righteous as others...
Anyway, now that I am done answering your post, I wanted to ask you this....have you run out of arguments? The only reason I ask is that you gone from explaing facts about Hybrids..namely the Prius...to attacking those who don't have the same viewpoint as you (i.e. diesel supporters). You do realize that that is (A) No way to win a debate (if I remember correctly, you were just practicing your debating skills here), (B) Not a very effective way of enlightening others to your point of view (in fact, some people might write you off after that), and (C) just plain rude.
While none of us knows what the future will be, it appears that hybrid production is going to be very limited for several years due to a lack of battery packs. There are plenty of clean diesel cars out there though. Certainly they have already proven to be very popular in Europe. Once we have ULSD fuel here I suspect we will be seeing a lot of them coming to the USA.
Both hybrids and diesels offer more fuel efficiency than gassers, and in time they will have a much bigger share of the US car market than we see now. There will be a place for hybrids, namely crowded cities. However I think that diesels will prove to be the car of choice for many people because (A) they have proven to be very durable, and (B) they can be produced at lower cost than comparable hybrids, and therefore they can be sold at lower prices.
Finally I would say that it is important that we not become so set for or against one or the other that we try to dictate what other people should drive, but rather let them have choices.
Why? Because we here in the USA have a battery of lawyers supporting groups like Greenpeace and Earth First. Anytime a nuke plant is planned or a reprocessing facility is considered, they drive up the cost and time for planning and construction to the point where it's not financially feasible anymore. Because of that, a nuke plant costs billions to erect and produces over 1000MW. Compare that to a coal or gas plant that probably costs a couple hundred million at the most and produces something like 500MW. So we in the USA DO have terrible nuclear fuel waste and it's because activists have driven the cost of a reprocessing plant up to the point where it's actually cheaper to store the spent fuel.
Bus as for Russia, they are, unfortunately, the most nuclear polluted country on the globe. Things that most people have no idea about. They are even having an effect on the arctic. I could go on for a LONG time about this, but this is not the place. instead, check out the following:
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm (IMHO, very spooky and actually brought tears to my eyes. "inside" info of the current area around chernobyl)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/tomsk-7_nuc.htm
Are you intentionally twisting the facts to apply the single-tank-only aspect my 3-year average? Because you are absolutely WRONG!
Any error caused by the bladder quickly balances out over the course of just a few tank measurements.
Total gas used and total distance traveled is always dead-on when multiple tanks are taken into account.
> 60 million new vehicles are sold each vehicle worldwide."
The second "vehicle" should be the word "year" instead. But since that is such a heavily published statistic, you should have known that already. It is the whole point of looking at the big picture, not just what *YOU* want.
> have you run out of arguments?
None of those are arguments. You obviously missed the point.
The point is to end the MISCONCEPTIONS that have been spread here!
JOHN
However, the Prius has a 13:1 compression which is extremely high for a gasoline engine. Most gasolince (ICE) are in the range 9-10.5 In the muscle car era the very high compression engines were 11:1 The higher compression engines needed the premium fuel to prevent pinging, but the Prius uses regular. Electronic engine managmeent now prevents pinging in most cases. And maybe the Prius high compression ratio has something to do with it being an Atkinson cycle instead of an Otto cycle.
But it certtainly is a new concern, Prius ICE failure.
YMMV,
MidCow
I too am tire of bhearing about one Prius use as a cab being an indicator of long life for all Prius batteries.
Also,
You present interesting input, please continue.
I had a 70 Oldsmobile 442 and the clutch used to need to be replaced once a year. However , the problem ( besides my driving style at the time) was like other muscle cars Oldsmobile just put a big engine in a car without upgrading the other components such as the clutch , drivetrain and brakes. When you do that the weak link fails.
YMMV,
MidCow
...and exactly how are the errors balanced oout when there are ALWAYS unknowns...namely the unknown of how much fuel was in the bladder to begin with. If you KNEW there was 1.4 gallons in there before you started pumping...and you filled the tank with 10 gallons.....then you would KNOW that there was a wasted capacity of .5 gallons, BUT since there is NO WAY to calculate how much you started with and NO WAY to calculate how much capacity is left in the bladder after "fill-up"...then there is NO WAY to accurately calculate fuel mileage at the pump. NO MATTER HOW MANY consecutive tanks you "calculate". If you are calculating the "average" of all the tanks in a given time...then what you have is an accurate average of inaccurate data......which is INACCURATE because there are too many unknown variables.
You don't know how much gas you've used, because you don't know how much is in there to begin with, you don't know how much gas you've actaully used during any particular segment and you don't know how much capacity is wasted...all you know is how much you've pumped and how many miles you've gone. Hardly scientific. I don't think that you can "quickly" balance that out...you will need a few months of data..not just a few tanks. And I know you have three years of data...but you are "calculating" every few tanks instead of long term.
I'm not spreading misconceptions John, I just want to know what mathematical equation your are using that miraculously computes all of the unknowns. You have (2) knowns (the amount that you put into the bladder and the amount of miles driven) and (2) unknowns (the amount of fuel in the bladder before you start pumping..and the wasted capacity of the bladder after pumping). Your two knowns CANNOT be computed to give you your two unknowns.....therefore resulting in flawed data.
I also agree with you that roadblocks to progress in this country have shackled us to the point that we have become a lesser power. The environmentalist have blocked not only nuclear power facilities. They have blocked any new refineries in CA since the early 1970s contributing to the highest gas prices in the US. We have agencies like CARB unevenly doling out their ignorance. Letting a giant caterpillar dump more pollution into the air than 100s of VW TDI automobiles. They even block geo-thermal plants. What could be cleaner than getting steam from the earth. It is used any place in the world that has geo-thermal. By the time the legislators, litigators and environmentalists get done with anything it costs the US consumer way more than it should. Or we send it off to be made in a more friendly country. That is why GM, Ford & chrysler are becoming more foriegn based. We are an unfriendly business environment.
TOTAL GALLONS PUMPED divided by TOTAL DISTANCE TRAVELED is a simple calculation that is very accurate.
The 1,318 gallons of gas I pumped into my 2001 Prius over the course of 3 years and 59,827 miles are not affected by an error from the very first fillup, not knowing exactly where "full" was initially. It is a negliable amount. Hello!
JOHN
That is precisely why the writer in the USA Today did not come up with the MPG the Prius owners wanted to see. It may be a Toyota smoke & mirror trick. I do think if you document your mileage over a 6 month period, actual gallons purchased and actual miles driven. It should be a fairly accurate overall mileage. You will never convince me that readout in the vehicle is very accurate. Don't get me wrong I like that MPG read-out. I had it in a rental car in Oregon last month. I kept close record of the gas mileage and the read-out was within 2 MPG of the actual consumption over 1350 miles. Oh and that was a very nice Ford Taurus that got 27.6 mpg for that whole trip around the state of Oregon.
Bull!
Vacationing up in Northern Minnesota has taught me a lot. I remember back in the 70's asking why there was always piles of foam on the shore. The reply was that the limestone in the lake bed was reacting with the pollution from the boat engines to help cleanse the water. And by looking at the photos of me playing in that water back then, I see that it used to be crystal clear. It isn't anymore. That foam is gone too. The limestone has been completely consumed. There is nothing available to cleanse anymore.
The air in rural areas will slowly grow more and more dirty. That natural resistance will be lost due to quite a number of factors. The biggest of which is just ordinary wind. It circulates air at fantastic rates. A storm system can blow through a metro area in just an hour, pushing the metro pollution into already weakened rural areas.
It will only get worse as time proceeds.
The NOx (smog) emissions much be significantly reduced. You can just runaway from the problem by moving away from urban areas.
JOHN