STIG

+1 on this one too!

SLegacy99

I agree. Consumers can keep their large SUVs just with 4 cylinders instead.

JessePS

thats pretty cool.

I wonder how Toyota/Lexus will deal with that. Probably with ease. Gives them 12 years to have every model a hybrid.

Lexus is really going too need to change the 10 year cycle on the SC to like a year cycle or something.

cliffud

iTrader: (3)

I think we can do it guys.

GM already had an electric car out - we all remember the EV1 right? That vehicle got 60mpg and it was pulled off the market for one reason or another. Whatever the case, in the late 90s, we did it.

As other members have pointed out. Toyota made great improvements on fuel efficiency and that was without any expectations from the government.

Look at John Goodman's 2003 H3 Hummer that gets 60mpg, 2,000 ft/lbs of torque, and 600 HP! Sure, it's the exteme approach and it costs a lot of money but it's possible and it's just a matter of massively producing the parts to make production scalable.

With 12 years go to, I'm sure we can do it if the car manufacturers make it a priority.



c.

Koma

iTrader: (3)

Link? I'd like to see this technology.

gengar

The EV1 was purely electric, so it didn't use gasoline at all and no mpg rating. It did get 50-150 miles per charge depending on the battery model.

The problem with electric is that it doesn't offer any actual efficiency increases, so it only displaces the energy-producing process. Yes, it may move us away from foreign oil but in terms of pollution it just moves it from the ICE to electricity production plants, which is primarily coal in this country and still heavily polluting.

RX_330

+1 I agree with this post 100%.

cliffud

iTrader: (3)

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10...id-hummer-60/2

There you go man.

Koma

iTrader: (3)

So these are speculative results rather than a fully built/tested vehicle.

cliffud

iTrader: (3)

the technology is there and it works. i'm sure he could tune in one direction or another to get more mileage or power. he's been doing these since 2005 and blew away the GM guys at Sema.

Koma

iTrader: (3)

But not both.
From what I hear bio-diesel is incredibly dirty.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

The technology is no mystery. The actual results are skewed dramatically by using more than biofuel in the mix. There's also hydrogen enrichment to the fuel which wasn't included in the calculations.

This would be like adding methanol injection to your car, running on pure meth, and claiming 300 mpg or more from your gasoline. Sure, you really are going a long way and using a tiny bit of gasoline, but you're not accounting for the methanol.

TANSTAAFL. It takes energy to move something. The only way the manufacturers will meet these efficiency goals without a quantum leap in engine efficiency is by reducing weight regardless of the powertrain's methodology. This means exotic materials and higher costs. It means less crashworthiness unless we're building McLaren F-1s - entirely carbon fibre - which is quite unaffordable for the masses. So, these standards will mean unsafe vehicles - underpowered, out matched by heavy commercial trucks, with narrow tires and tall sidewalls to ensure they will not handle like anything we drive today.

And all this talk about the miracle of hybrids ignores the fundamental physics - it is not possible to convert energy from one form to another without losses. So generating electricity to drive the vehicle with and ICE is LESS efficient than driving the vehicle's wheels directly. Americans will not buy diesels, and they surely would not buy a car designed to be truly efficient (fixed rpm, Miller cycle, operates at full throttle torque peak only when necessary to restore the charge on the batteries) and even then with everything optimized for thermal efficiency, you'll still only see a 15% increase in economy once you've completed cold cycle and got the engine up to temperature.

Plug in the wall in California is a joke. This is the same state with rolling blackouts a few years ago. Sure, let's plug in 10M cars every evening in the summer when everyone's air conditioning is peaking the utilities load. I'm sure the utility guys will respond by bringing more gas turbines online to support the brownout.

Once again, California is forcing their agenda on the nation. It's truly sad.

LexFather

^^^
Amen...weight...but we need cars with NAV, 56 cup holders, heated/cooled everything and well most think of cars as living rooms.

I think we are more than capable of producing a good mid size car, thats safe with high fuel efficiency. Camry Hybrid is a good example.

Thing is, car makers DON'T WANT to make that logical, boring, decision. They rather do the cheaper thing, crank out more HP, and market more HP to the masses.

I still don't understand why Camry's Accords, Altimas etc need 270hp. They were fine with 200.

PVlexus

My guess to that is because people want the power. Someone that wants a decent car, thats not too slow, would rather get the 270 compared to the 200hp model. I mean, if everyone was fine with low horse power, would BMW make a 528, 535, a 550 and an M5 with even more power? Power sells, and it will always sell until the taxes are so high, that you physically cant pay, then you downsize...

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

Yeah, they need 270 hp to go 45 mph on I-880 between Union City and San Jose - and that's when there's not much traffic. Georgia's just as bad, maybe worse.

We'd better innovate some solutions to these problems soon...