...but not neccesarily be called hybrids. I mean, if it gives a car more boost, why not do it? It would bring HP levels up while saving gas milage. I think if the manufacturer made the battery engine completely invisible to the consumer *by that I mean to normal people, not enthusiasts of course* that it would sell pretty good. I mean, no one is going to want to buy a hybrid sports car, those are almost 2 conflicting ideas. But if the manufacturer didn't make a big deal out of it, didn't badge it as a hybrid, if they just started stuffing them in cars, then I don't see how it could hurt. Take a 405 HP LS6 and give it a lil boost with a 10 HP battery engine and bam, your increasing your gas milage while upping the power level to 415. I know this idea won't go over well in this MB, because of all the die-hard sports cars rules, hybrids sucks guys around...but whatever, just an idea...

The only problems I can think of is that right now it costs $3000 to give a car a batter engine *i think* and I'm not sure how the power to weight ratio would be affected by this...

 

And what if that gets popular and has an SUV-like effect in the automobile market?? I doubt that would be, but if so, it too could work against us the way SUV's did.

 

First, let me say I work for a company developing an electric motor scooter (250cc equivalent, more like a motorcycle in American terminology). The problem is more battery cost and weight than electric motor cost and weight. There would be a fuel mileage benefit by using a smaller internal combustion engine (ICE) in a car, and making up the power loss with an electric motor, but this car would likely weigh more than the equivalent larger ICE-engined car (bad for performance). And it would cost more. Me, I'd rather just suffer with the worse gas mileage of the larger ICE, and have a lighter-weight, less expensive car.

The US could go a LONG way to reducing its dependency on foriegn oil and vehicle emissions without resorting to electric vehicles (battery or fuel cell) or hybrids, simply by driving smaller, lighter-weight, efficient vehicles. To force SUV-driving morons to do this would require hiking gasoline taxes. Which isn't going to happen any time soon. So there's all this talk about hybrids, electrics, and fuel cell vehicles. As far as I can tell, it's just talk.

It's pretty disgusting how overweight vehicles on the market today are. Most people would rather have 50% more power in their "performance" cars (which is what we've gotten over the past 12 years), I'd rather have a 33% weight reduction (instead of the huge weight GAIN we've gotten).

Reduced weight = increased fun, to me anyway.

Dan Baldwin
'95 Z28 M6 convertible (Rubenesque)
'91 240SX (overweight for a 2.5l four)
'71 240Z 3.1 (wheeeeee!)

 

The US could go a long way to reduce its dependency on foreign oil by drilling for our own oil on US land. Remember ANWR? That's right, we can't drill there because we might disturb some caribou.

 

Actually it boils down to cost effectiveness. It's just simply cheaper to import oil from other countries than it is to produce our own.

Remember the boom in oil production here in the first half of the 80s? That came about because the price of oil climbed enough to make it worthwhile to drill here in the US, and alot of places especially Texas, reaped alot of benefits. Today, almost 20 years later, oil is selling for not much more than it did back then! Hardly enough to drill here.

Now, kick in a fuel tax that sends imported oil up to about $2-2.50 a gallon, then it may be the thing to kick start our own oil production.

Trivia tidbit: Most of the oil used in the United States does not come from the middle east. Also, Australia imports very little if any oil. They are pretty self sufficient.

 

Doesn't 2002 Honda S2000 have electric engine that recharges the battery as you brake?

On another note, such cars require specialists to service - otherwise you can kill yourself due to high voltage.

 

Don't forget the potential for explosion in an accident.

Those things contain an awful lot of acid too, don't they?

 

Alright, your starting to scare me away from my own car guys...

 

No, that's the Honda Insight and Civic hybrids.

 

Honda just developed a 400hp 3.5L hybrid concept that gets 35+mpg. I think it's called the "Dualnote".

A question on the DOD tech GM will be implementing to it's future line of v8's. When certain cylinders are deactivated, wouldn't the other cylinders have to work harder, thus making the engine spin higher then it normally would with all 8 cylinders active? Thanks to the v8 and all that low end power/tq, a 4th gen ls-1 spins at around 1800rpms @80mph in 6th. With 6 or 4 cylinders, wouldn't it be @ 2000+rpms?

 

Yes, the running cylininders would have to work harder. However, that's not a big deal. D.O.D. activates when you are cruising at low throttle settings (low load). When 4 cylinders are deactivated, the throttle opens more (fly-by wire throttle) to make the remaining 4 cylinders work a bit harder.

Engines operate most efficiently at Wide open Throttle, because this reduces the pumping losses associated with the throttle blade. Cruising around at part throttle causes a great deal of pumping losses. So with DOD, the remaing 4 cylinders need to work a bit harder, but they do so at a larger throttle opening, with much less pumping loss. Engine rpm remaines the same.

Also, the 4 cylinders that are deactivated are no longer pumping air, and effectively act as springs. The energy required to compress air is returned as the piston moves down, and the air expands. The 4 deactivated cylinders just add some friction losses (pistin rings against cylinders, etc.)

Diesel engines operate so efficiently, due to the lack of any significant pumping loss, as they have no throttle blades. The higher compression ratio also plays a big part. Truckers will leave their rigs running while the stop for dinner, etc, because the fuel consumption at idle, no load, with little pumping loss, is negligible.

 

I can't find the article right now, but about 3 - 5 months ago I read in Motortrend or Road&Track their analysis of new S2000. It definitely had an electrical generator/engine of some sort. Whether it's upcoming or current, I cannot recall, but in the article they were surprised that it didn't add that much weight. But one thing they said was due to high voltage, one had to be careful about servicing the car.

The one thing I definintely remember was that when braking, energy went into this storehouse, and was later used somewhere.

I was surprised to hear they put it in S2000.

Ahh, if I could only find that article. Anyone else remembers seeing/reading this?

 

No. R377 is right. Maybe it's a concept you are thinking of?

 

It's too bad I threw out a bunch of older magazines after my move, now I started doubting myself.... I wish I could flip back. Tell you what, I'll send Motortrend an email, asking them about it.

It's not a hybrid. It's not the same as Insight. But it had some minor electrical device, something like a generator in the area of engine/clutch/tranny that used to store power from braking in the batteries that were placed somewhere around seats. It's too real in my head to have dreamt it. But I am no longer sure if this was upcoming 2003 model, or what... ANd I can't recall the exact purpose of that electircal thing....

If I get a reply from MT, I'll post anything relevant. I'm very curious myself now.

 

Could it be an electric power steering booster? That would make sense on a car that is curb weight consious.

I know that Ford is looking into a way to store gas (air as far as I know, but could be nitrogen) under pressure while braking, then using that pressurized gas to help launch the vehicle. This was for the large trucks, SuperDutys and bigger if I remember right, since the system probably is quite heavy.