Hypothetical car concept- 100mpg 2009 Vibe!

[Slimer]

Hey everybody. I thought I'd share with you some musings I've been having lately on the evolution of the car, and how the automobile could be improved. My personal philosophy is highly environmentally conscious, and I try to dedicate myself to living in as wise and sustainable a way as possible. Now, I'm ALSO a car geek, so naturally the two collide and leave me wondering how to make the automobile as efficient as possible. I thought at least some of you might be interested. I think this concept is pretty viable, especially in a future that I believe will be defined by rising fuel prices as demand begins to catch up to supply. Basically, it's a hybrid. The Toyota Prius is a credible stab at the idea, but it's nowhere near what it could be. So here's my idea. If you need more info on the various technologies, ask me.- The bodystyle would be something very similar to the Vibe, only lower drag. A nice smooth profile would cut drag to around .20 or .22, which is respectable. The body itself would, most realistically, be an aluminum spaceframe. This is already in production in the Audi A2 and A8. This type of construction uses extruded aluminum beams linked together like a skeleton. It looks sort of like a "birdcage" race car body. Body panels would be composite plastic, like Saturn- light weight, no dents, no painting. The advantage is 1/3 weight savings. For even lighter weight and higher efficiency, use carbon fiber for all or part of the spaceframe. Maybe some sort of composite plasic for doors, hood, and hatch. - Power would be supplied by a small, highly advanced rotary engine. The advantage here would be light weight. I'd use a Russian refinement of the standard Wankel rotary that is as clean and efficient as a piston engine. Look up "Wankel engine" on google for how this type of engine works. The engine would crank out no more than 30hp (probably closer to 20hp) and be roughly the size of a coffee pot. It would burn compressed natural gas or propane. Or perhaps alcohol.- Huh? you say. That's not enough to power a car! It'd be a slug! Nope, I reply. That rotary engine is hooked up to a flywheel generator. The engine only runs for about 2 minutes out of 12. It exists solely to spin up to speed a heavy carbon-fiber cylinder. This cylinder is lined with magnets and spins around a wire-wrapped stationary core. It's inside a vacuum chamber that reduces friction, and it generates power using the heavy wheel's momentum. Every so often, the wheel is kicked up to speed again by the engine. The rest of the time, the flywheel stores power in its momentum and generates power off of that. Advantage: the engine runs very seldom, and can be run at its most efficient RPM when it does run. Maybe there's a capacitor bank to store electricity for passing or mountain driving. Engine + generator= about the size of a small trash can. Maybe two feet long, 9 or 10 inches wide at the absolute most. - This power is fed to compact, efifcient electric motors in the wheels of the car. No transmission, no diffs, no driveshafts to gobble up power with friction losses. Electric motors create 100% of their power at any RPM range, so all that's required is modulating the amount of power the motor gets. In-hub, the motor has maximum efficiiency. Go to http://www.e-traction.com for more info. Alternative technology: An new Japanese development may, if valid, lead to electric motors 80% more efficient than existing ones, and would be perfectly suited to this application. This would allow the engine and flywheel generator to be even tinier. Brakes would be regenerative, feeding power into a small battery for EVEN MORE efficiency. - Depending on your desires, the car could be rear-wheel drive, front-wheel drive, or 4wd. Maybe 2wd for efficiency in the summer, and swap in 2 extra (rented?) motor wheels for traction in the winter? Rear-wheel for sporty driving, if you want. That's the meat of it. I suspect, engineered right, this sucker could be getting well over 100-120mpg, or the natural gas equivalent. Maybe even more; I'm just guessing. It would also be incredibly roomy inside for its exterior size. Electric motors' high torque would give it incredible off-the-line performance and pickup. How is this possible? Through a lightweight body, and avoiding the power losses of drivetrain and big, clunky internal combustion engines that rarely run at their most efficient. Plus, a high-energy alternative clean fuel for tailpipe emissions cleaner than the air you're breathing right now. The idea could be extended to small economy cars (200 mpg), minivans, SUV's, you name it. The bigger the vehicle, the less efficient you can be, but you could still probably get a good 60-70mpg from a midsize SUV. I think it's an idea whose time has come. So why the hell isn't this being pursued seriously, instead of impractical hydrogen cars and fuel cells? It could be made with technology that exists right now, without needing expensive new infrastructure and energy sources. It could run on regular gas just as easy as anything else. Pontiac: BUILD THE SUCKER! (Probably not, but I can hope.)

[redlava]

Sounds fairly simple. But all in all I think power will be an issue. Even with the rising gas prices people want more power from their vehicles. Your idea sounds very good, but until the gas prices get completely out of reach for average families you good idea might sit on the shelf along with the engine that runs on fryer grease, and the one that runs on hydrogen peroxide. Personally, if they can develop a hybrid engine or a fuel cell that has the same power as a regular gasoline engine, put in a car body that doesn't make my stomach turn, and have it priced where it is affordable, I would switch in a heartbeat.

[Slimer]

I agree. I think that eventually we're gonna have to wise up and realize that having our cake and eating it too is too costly. This would provide reasonable performance- something like our vibes. I suspect that rising fuel prices are going to bring to an end the era of the muscle car- and good riddance.

[scherry2]

Quote, originally posted by Slimer » I suspect that rising fuel prices are going to bring to an end the era of the muscle car- and good riddance.man you just hurt my feelings. if it wasn't for those american muscle cars you wouldn't be driving your american built ricer. and people who drive those muscle cars could care less how much gas is. as far as your Idea, well i'm sure your not the first to come up with that idea (as good as it is!) but you forget who runs the world, OIL COMPANIES and they probably on some shelf have your idea collecting dust for the obvious reason: they will make no money on it.

[Yoda]

Quote, originally posted by Slimer »I agree. I think that eventually we're gonna have to wise up and realize that having our cake and eating it too is too costly. This would provide reasonable performance- something like our vibes. I suspect that rising fuel prices are going to bring to an end the era of the muscle car- and good riddance.I did not realize that the musclecar era was still going on ...But seriously - how do you explain the presence of 10 mpg ferraris, 13 mpg BMW and mercedes, TVRs, in Europe, where gas can cost $5 a gallon? I admire your thrift, but I think that cars with poor mileage are usually coveted because of their impracticality, not in spite of it...I don't know if the world is ready for a styrofoam vibe that runs on a blender motor just yet... Now if I didn't have to share the road with 5000 lb Pathfinder Armadas and Caddilac Escalades, then maybe.If you want to know why, just look over your monthly budget and look at the tiny percentage spent on gas - it just doesn't matter to most people if they have to double it. People who are really affected when gas prices double can't afford a new car anyway, so they just complain some more. Catch 22.

[scherry2]

Quote, originally posted by Yoda » People who are really affected when gas prices double can't afford a new car anyway, so they just complain some more. LOL you don't know how true that is.

[kostby]

Quote, originally posted by Yoda »I did not realize that the musclecar era was still going on ...What else would car-crazy empty-nester Baby-Boomers be spending their kid's inheritances on these days?So if you've already dropped 30 to 50 large on a restored vintage musclecar, or a modern high performance street rod or a high performance retromobile, what the heck is $5 bucks a gallon for enough gas to drive it around and feel like a teenager again?"If you have to ask the price (of gas, in this case), then you truly can't afford it!"Long live impractical, 2-door, cramped musclecars with humongous cubic inch V8's, tons of torque, and ludicrous speed!

[VibeChick]

Quote, originally posted by kostby »What else would car-crazy empty-nester Baby-Boomers be spending their kid's inheritances on these days?So if you've already dropped 30 to 50 large on a restored vintage musclecar, or a modern high performance street rod or a high performance retromobile, what the heck is $5 bucks a gallon for enough gas to drive it around and feel like a teenager again?"If you have to ask the price (of gas, in this case), then you truly can't afford it!"Long live impractical, 2-door, cramped musclecars with humongous cubic inch V8's, tons of torque, and ludicrous speed!LOL - you are so right! My parents have a restored 69 Camero (shipped by train to Alberta from North Carolina) and a mint 95 Mercedes SL500...My mom jokinly refers to them as "garage furniture". I think..hey, quit spending my inheritance!!!But I'm sure gas prices are the least of their concerns...

[Stang2Vibe]

Ok, everyone get out your GenVibe history books and take note: I agree with scherry2 on this one.I love the "garage furniture" muscle cars of days before my time like no other. But for my daily driver, I really appreciate the many modern features of even economy cars that aren't available to the old cars. I like the ideas that Slimer has, but I would have to reserve my final judgement on it until I can see some performance estimates. If we're talking about performance that is not much better than a Prius, then I'll have to say no thanks and go out and buy a 1970 Chevelle SS with a 454 engine and plow through all the little cardboard cars putting around on the road. Until I see numbers that can come close to a car like that Chevelle in some electric car at a reasonable cost, I'm really not interested.Also, Slimer, you seem to be a rather intelligent person who also has a firm command on the English language so I must ask of you, what makes hydrogen powered cars so impractical? Assume that the government will pick up the tab on implementing the industry infrastructure (since it would save them lots of cash by taking away our dependence on foreign oil sources and all the problems that go along with that). Hydrogen is free and plentiful, we just have to find a practical to harness it's vast energy potential in a safe way. It also produces pure H2O as it's waste product, so no harm done there, either.I see your proposed car as a very possible vehicle to build with current technology, but the production costs would be astronomical. I'd predict that if cars built as you have suggested were mass produced, the final cost to the consumer would be about equivalent to a new Ferrari. Imagine a Toyota Prius with a Ferrari pricetag. Now THAT is impractical. And in the end, it still does not remove our dependence on foreign oil. It just reduces it. And if you cut into the oil company's profits that deeply by reducing demand caused by massive usage of your proposed electric hybird, then the oil companys will have to try to recover those lost profits by increasing the price. You will have just created the $15 gallon of gas. So now we are still dependent on foreign oil, paying $15 per gallon for gas, and driving a higher tech Prius that costs as much as a Ferrari. I just don't see the benefits from this other than it makes the eco-hippies jump for joy.

[AKLGT]

Quote, originally posted by Stang2Vibe »Ok, everyone get out your GenVibe history books and take note: I agree with scherry2 on this one.(removed)! this is a day in history!!!! lol

[MJN2]

Quote, originally posted by Stang2Vibe »Also, Slimer, you seem to be a rather intelligent person who also has a firm command on the English language so I must ask of you, what makes hydrogen powered cars so impractical? Not meaning to step on Slimer's toes here, but there are several reasons why hydrogen is still quite impractical right now:There are three ways hydrogen can be stored in a vehicle for use.1. Gaseous form.Pros: Easiest methodCons: Takes up a lot of space, would have to be stored under tremendous pressure to have enough on-board to be useful - roughly 10,000psi for an average vehicle to travel 400 miles - which would create a whole other set of problems, i.e. what would happen in a accident?2. Liquid formPros: Much less pressure on the fuel cell/tank than in gaseous form.Cons: Must be cooled to -423°F in order to stay in liquid form, which would require a lot of energy itself to keep at that temp. And if it gets warmer than that, you'd have to bleed off the vapor, which would create a major explosion hazard, IMO.3. Infusing a solid material with hydrogen (lithium hydride & sodium borohydride are the two most commonly used materials currently)Pros: A lot of hydrogen can be stored in a relatively small amount of material.Cons: Energy is required to infuse the material, and depending on the material, extremely high temps are required to extract the hydrogen.Most of the information that I've typed here was from a wired.com article I read several months back, and went back to in order to get some facts straight

[noginsk]

I agree with Slimer on this topic, as well as stang2vibe about the hydrogen power. I think that the only way cars will become as efficient as 100+ MPG is if the government came in and started putting exorbitent taxes on gas, similar to what many states do with cigarettes (and no I do not smoke). If our counrty keeps going as the only real superpower left, AMericans are not going to want a car that saves money on gas. It would have to be an astronomical savings inorder to grab our attention. Personally, I wish for the dya when I can get that vibe with the cruising range of Maine to Florida on one tank of gas because I'm more of an efficiency nut than a power nut. If you have a car that can go from 0-60 in 4.0 seconds, and compare it to what most people drive and the way that most people drive, no one would really get the chance (not very often at least) to utilize that car's power. Unless they are more like many people here at genvibe and are power hungry. I'm sure this post doesn't make much sense to you reading it, just a rant on the topic. No harm done.

[Slimer]

Ok, I'll try to answer the cost and hydrogen questions in one go. As for the price of the Hybrivibe, it wouldn't be that expensive. I don't know why you're quoting Ferrari prices here, because I can't imagine how that'd be the case. Aluminum spaceframes aren't that expensive, small engines and batteries not much more so. All of this technology already exists and just needs to be brought together. So I can't imagine why it would cost that much more than a regular car. Basically, we're talking an Audi A2 with a generator and some motors. I bet you could produce this thing- maybe with batteries instead of a flywheel- for under 30k. If you weren't too adventurous with the technology, maybe 20k.Hydrogen sucks for a number of reasons. - Transportation: itty-bitty little molecules tend to leak, and need to be stored cryogenically at very low temperatures. Containment would be problematic at best. Lots of energy would have to be invested in keeping it cold and keeping it contained. Transportation by truck or pipeline would be nightmarish. Then you have to contain it onboard the car. Infrastructure would be very hard, unless you had a lot of decentralized little hydrogen plants. Which would be VERY expensive. - There are no hydrogen sources on Earth. It's essentially a storage medium, not a source. The energy would have to be produced elsewhere. It's NOT free or plentiful- you have to isolate it before it's available for use. The energy investment would be sizable, and it's debatable where that would come from. Nuclear is unacceptable (safety and waste disposal), wind is problematic, fusion ain't here yet, coal and oil is approaching the intersection between supply and demand, solar is inefficent, so is tidal. Add that to the energy required to contain it or make metal hydrides, and it involves more energy input than output. This is not cost efficient. It's more trouble than it's worth, especially when you consider the costs of infrastructure. But I have a better idea. My proposal is a transition to methane. It would be child's play to insert some genes from methane-producing bacteria into basic E. coli and dump them into our sewage and organic waste. We could convert almost any organic material into methane with these bacteria if we engineered them correctly. Methane burns cleanly and has a high energy content; we could easily produce sufficient quantities of it to fuel our cars. This could be burned in your Chevelle or my Hybrivibe with very little modification. It would not be introducing new carbon into our atmosphere; the carbon dioxide produced by the combustion of methane would have been part of the global carbon cycle recently, instead of being ancient CO2 locked up into millions-of-years-old petroleum. The methane my car's burning today was produced from last week's morning dump, which came from veggies that I picked from my garden last month. We could also use biodiesel- transesterified veggie oil, essentially. Genetically modify some crop to make a whole lot of oil, or maybe even use some sort of phytoplankton or algae. Get the glycerine out, and boom, you've got fuel. This would be limited by the amount of crops we could grow, but it's another source. Or you could engineer bacteria to take in methane and metabolize it into hydrocarbons. Infrastructure? Already there. Hook up a compressor to your home natural gas line, and you can fill your car in the comfort of your own home. No additional CO2 in the atmosphere, and a great way to dispose of waste too. Think of it- we could reuse most of the stuff we throw away to make fuel. There's another technique called thermal depolymerization that could take care of more inorganic stuff like plastic and whatnot, and produce something very similar to petroleum that can be refined to make gas and diesel. And I bet we could be independent of foreign energy sources with these practices. There's better solutions than hydrogen out there. Not to say that hydrogen couldn't work- but why go the hard route? Less infrastructure to build makes it easier to make the transition sooner rather than later, cheaper and easier. Methane's the way to go- you can burn it in existing engines, it's transportable, there's already infrastructure, and it can be produced cheaply.

[Slimer]

And stang- I can think of few better ways to get some REALLY nasty performance than a hybrid set up for performance rather than economy. A turbocharged performance engine- set up for really high HP at high revs- coupled with a torquey electric engine to take care of the lower rev range. The engine only takes over at its most efficient and powerful speeds; it would spin a generator and create ungodly amounts of electricity to dump straight into the electric torque motor for launches, then a clutch could engage and transmit engine power directly to the transmission once you got up to speed. I suggest the Honda S2000's 240hp 2.0L (maybe with a few dozen HP added with a low-pressure turbo) coupled with a 60-70 HP electric motor with around, say, 300lb-ft of torque. And you'd still probably get around 40mpg.

[MJN2]

Quote, originally posted by Slimer »We could also use biodiesel- transesterified veggie oil, essentially. Genetically modify some crop to make a whole lot of oil, or maybe even use some sort of phytoplankton or algae. Get the glycerine out, and boom, you've got fuel. This would be limited by the amount of crops we could grow, but it's another source. Or you could engineer bacteria to take in methane and metabolize it into hydrocarbons. Ethanol would be an example of this. However, like hydrogen, it takes more energy to produce it than you get in return. But, ethanol seems to be a lot of midwestern politicians' pork/pet projects, and the farmers like the subsidies, so I doubt it is going away. And for the record, a recent study indicated that gasoline with ethanol additive isn't any cleaner than straight gasoline. (sorry for that little bit of off-topic)

[Slimer]

Mostly because you have to distill it. Methane, being gaseous, would simply rise up, already pure, out of whatever slop you were creating it with. Also, ethanol requires sugar, not just biomass; creating that sugar is pricy to begin with.

[ragingfish]

Didn't they use a similar method for the delorean in one of the BTTF movies? Mr. Fusion or something...

[Slimer]

Haha! Mr. Fusion- the ultimate energy source. Also, some research I did over the weekend indicates that the planetary-gear setup in the Prius is acutally more efficient than my idea, because it combines my idea with a regular hybrid. It uses my concept (or something like it) to get up to speed, then uses the engine directly to remain at speed and charge the batteries. It's all done thru a planetary gearset. This drives the cost even lower because this setup is already in production. I'd swap in a small diesel (Volkswagen is best) instead of the gas engine in the Prius, and drop the whole shebang into a lightweight vibe-type vehicle. 80-90mpg easy.

[redlava]

Quote, originally posted by Yoda »I did not realize that the musclecar era was still going on ...But seriously - how do you explain the presence of 10 mpg ferraris, 13 mpg BMW and mercedes, TVRs, in Europe, where gas can cost $5 a gallon? I admire your thrift, but I think that cars with poor mileage are usually coveted because of their impracticality, not in spite of it... Unfortunatly the people who can afford the Ferraris, BMW's and Hummers can probably afford the fuel. It is just the little guys like us who suffer the most. A lot of people don't realize how good we have it here in the USA. Our gas prices are the cheapest in the world, and we still complain. When you think about it gas prices are not that expensive for us, it is just more than we are used to paying.

[redlava]

We probably won't be seeing Hydrogen powered cars for sale for quite some time. It would cost Billions of dollars to just get the infastructure in place to be able to fuel the cars at a station. And somebody also mentioned the problems of getting enough hydrogen into the car to make it worth while.Methane is also a good candidate for future fuels considering the huge amounts of it that are sitting in underground deposits in the ocean floor. The only bad part of it is trying to extract it without killing a lot of people or causing damage to the planet. If you want more info on Methane hydrate look here http://www.llnl.gov/str/Durham.html

[Stang2Vibe]

Quote, originally posted by Slimer »I don't know why you're quoting Ferrari prices here, because I can't imagine how that'd be the case.I was taking a bit of dramatic liscense there. I figured that the EV1 project that GM undertook in the mid 90's would be a practical comparison since it was semi-mass marketed. GM was charging around $42K-$45K for one and they were selling them at a net loss that was subsidized by the government. It fit 2 people and made about 0.00000000018537 HP. (Dramatic liscence again). Made it from 0-60, well, in about the same amount of time that it takes for the average morning commute. I figured to give a vehicle that can haul 5-6 adults enough nuts to get out of its own way on an alternative power system, it would cost at least double what an EV1 cost, especially since the government will no longer subsidize a production loss on a vehicle. Realistically, that is about in Ferrari price range. So now what will people choose? A 200 HP, 250 lb/ft torque Vibe hybrid or a brand new Ferrari? Hmmm, tough choice.Quote, originally posted by Slimer »Basically, we're talking an Audi A2 with a generator and some motors. I bet you could produce this thing- maybe with batteries instead of a flywheel- for under 30k. If you weren't too adventurous with the technology, maybe 20k.If it looks like an Audi A2, I still wouldn't take it if you gave it to me AND paid me $20K-$30K. No thanks. I'd rather ride one of these little motor scooters that I see kids on to work in a blinding snowstorm than be seen in an abomination like the A2. Yuuuuccckkk. I shudder to the bone at the very thought.Quote, originally posted by Slimer »Hydrogen sucks for a number of reasons.Ok, you've made your case here. But, I would contend that there is highly advanced technology already in existance out there that neither you nor I know about that would probably permit the usage of hydrogen as a common fuel. Think about this: if we could put men on the moon and bring them safely back home, send space probes to the outer reaches of our solar system and still receive usable messages from them decades later, put numerous satellites into orbit for so many different purposes, and all this on technology that came about when some of the most advanced technology on the market was a color CRT tube tv, then I'm sure that someone somewhere has at least some of the answers to hydrogen power.Quote, originally posted by Slimer »This could be burned in your Chevelle or my Hybrivibe with very little modification.Now you've piqued my interest. I know that most top fuel dragsters run on Nitromethane, but it is very hard on the engines and they must be rebuilt after each night of racing. I'd like to see/hear more on how methane can be used as a common and safe transportation fuel. I could go for that.Quote, originally posted by Slimer »We could also use biodiesel- transesterified veggie oil, essentially. Genetically modify some crop to make a whole lot of oil, or maybe even use some sort of phytoplankton or algae. Get the glycerine out, and boom, you've got fuel. This would be limited by the amount of crops we could grow, but it's another source.I like this idea too. Hell, we're already paying farmers to NOT grow crops, why not pay them to grow crops for fuel instead. My only concern with this is that I don't know how much of this that the soil can take. Reports are coming through that we are already greatly depleating our crop soil used for food production.In any case, I do thank you greatly for your exposition on this topic, Slimer. Some great ideas to ponder here that I think should be given more mainstream public attention. Too bad that Americans today always seem to expect someone else to figure out how to solve all the problems instead of bringing issues like this to light for many to think about. Great info and I thank you very much.

[Stang2Vibe]

Quote, originally posted by Slimer »And stang- I can think of few better ways to get some REALLY nasty performance than a hybrid set up for performance rather than economy.I like hearing this .Quote, originally posted by Slimer »I suggest the Honda S2000's 240hp 2.0L (maybe with a few dozen HP added with a low-pressure turbo) coupled with a 60-70 HP electric motor with around, say, 300lb-ft of torque. And you'd still probably get around 40mpg. I don't like hearing this. I have a deep seeded personal hatred of Honda products. If you can produce something more equivalent to the power output of a Porsche's flat 6 engine that puts out 400 HP, 400 lb/ft of torque, I'd be VERY interested. If you could get it to sound like an old Pontiac 502 ci big block with a crazy cam (complete with all the shaking and rumbling), I'd do backflips. Get it to run on non-petroleum based fuels and I'll invite you to do business with me. It would take way more than 40 mpg to make me happy for going through all this trouble. Triple that and I'd love it because I could shove my monster machine in the face of every miniature bubble driving eco-hippie out there. I'd have MANY more HP to roast those stupid little ugly Honda driving kids AND be doubling the best fuel economy of the savviest self-righteous eco-hippie. Ahh, it would be my utopia!

[noginsk]

Quote, originally posted by Slimer »And stang- I can think of few better ways to get some REALLY nasty performance than a hybrid set up for performance rather than economy. A turbocharged performance engine- set up for really high HP at high revs- coupled with a torquey electric engine to take care of the lower rev range. The engine only takes over at its most efficient and powerful speeds; it would spin a generator and create ungodly amounts of electricity to dump straight into the electric torque motor for launches, then a clutch could engage and transmit engine power directly to the transmission once you got up to speed. I suggest the Honda S2000's 240hp 2.0L (maybe with a few dozen HP added with a low-pressure turbo) coupled with a 60-70 HP electric motor with around, say, 300lb-ft of torque. And you'd still probably get around 40mpg. I think the mazda rotary would be a good candidate for hyrid boosting.

[Slimer]

Regarding the EV1- that was expensive due to all the batteries, and the development of the lightweight technology. My proposal uses off-the-shelf stuff, and technology already being used in relatively inexpensive production models. A decent planetary-gear hybrid, especially with a performance setup, would get great performance, as I mentioned. And I can't imagine it would be that expensive- especially if you stuck with a traditional steel body. Remember, the Prius uses this system already and it's not too pricy. Even with a spaceframe body, you could drive the price down to the high twenties. (You'd probably need to make it a sedan with an upmarket sort of feel to sell something at that price, but hey.) The EV1 required all that technology because they needed to shave a lot of weight off to get decent range off their thousand-pound battery pack. Hybrids can be a lot more conventional. (Though I'd still like to see a thousand-pound carbon-fiber space-age wonder.....) And yes, the A2 sucks. I mentioned it solely because it's a Vibeish car with a spaceframe. Heh. I'm not sure I am as violently opposed to the idea as you are, but whatever. Since we don't know about this hypothetical hydrogen technology, I'm most comfortable assuming it doesn't exist until I see some evidence for it. It'd be cool if it were around. Methane conversions are incredibly easy. In India, where I spent a year, they have an amazingly large number of CNG (compressed natural gas) vehicles. The conversion is cheap, easy (even in a third-world country) and results in a very clean vehicle. It's almost as power-dense as gas and can be burned in any gasoline engine (and, I think, in most diesels). You'd lose a few hp, but not a while lot. If you don't like Honda, just grab anything with a really high-power to displacement engine. You could build your gas engine with the same lightness and power charateristics as a racing engine but retain tractability with the electric motor. As for the fertility of agricultural soils, you're absolutely right. I'm an ecologist, and I can tell you straight up that it's not looking too great. If we started practicing some better farming techniques instead of squeezing the land for everything it can give us all the time, we'd be in a much better situation. But that's a different thread.... Glad you've enjoyed the topic.

[Slimer]

Some further thoughts. While high performance hybrids are possible and fairly easy to make, I think that emphasis should be put on introducing mass-market hybrids. If you put planetary-gear diesel hybrid engines under the hoods of the cars that most people buy- minivans, small SUV's, midsize sedans and wagons, compacts- it would achieve much greater market penetration (and therefore provide the best benefits) than introducing hybrid supercars straight off the bat. Of course, it'll be possible to do that further down the line, but having sports cars powered by methane in a traditional ICE setup is going to be more cost effective in the short run. I see much greater benefit to hybridizing the cars that are bought most by people who don't really care about performance. Once the technology is mature, it can be transitioned upwards.

[kostby]

Quote, originally posted by Slimer » While high performance hybrids are possible and fairly easy to make, I think that emphasis should be put on introducing mass-market hybrids. ... I see much greater benefit to hybridizing the cars that are bought most by people who don't really care about performance. Once the technology is mature, it can be transitioned upwards. Yeah! That would leave all the 502 c.i. musclemachines for the real gearheads like us to play with! And with such efficient vehicles, demand for oil would drop drastically, the OPEC countries would be screwed, and oil would sell for about $3.00 a barrel.

[Stang2Vibe]

Quote, originally posted by Slimer »I'm not sure I am as violently opposed to the idea as you are, but whatever.Oh, no violence there. You haven't been around herer long enough yet to see me get violent! LOL. Quote, originally posted by Slimer »Since we don't know about this hypothetical hydrogen technology, I'm most comfortable assuming it doesn't exist until I see some evidence for it. It'd be cool if it were around.I am 99% confident that it IS already out there, though putting it to this kind of use is just not currently practical. When the government hints to off-the-wall ideas like this (as Bush did in his State of the Union address), it sets off alarms in my head that they have been up to something and that a dramatic change in that direction is in our future. Since that speech was given, people have been clamoring from all over the world to put together a way to make this work. The results and finds so far have been fascinating. Some high-school dropout in Canada found a way to produce a hydrogen supply for cars by reacting recycled aluminum cans with something, I forget how it actually all worked (read about it too quickly). The government is going to be sinking billions of dollars into hydrogen fuel research over the next few years, so they have to have some good reason for this that we are just not quite aware of yet. Again, I think that the ulitmate goal from the project is to get us completely off of oil sources for our fuels. The ideas that you have presented so far for a hybrid car still keep us dependant on oil, just to a lesser extent. We need to get our heating and electrical power sources off of these foreign fuel sources as well. So the hydrogen technology that the government wants to develop is not intended just for use in cars, but for our nation's power supply and as a heating fuel source as well. Get us to where we have not much use for foreign oil, and it will release the strangle hold that the Middle East has on the rest of the world.Quote, originally posted by Slimer »In India, where I spent a year, they have an amazingly large number of CNG (compressed natural gas) vehicles. The conversion is cheap, easy (even in a third-world country) and results in a very clean vehicle.Due to major advancements primarily in the technology sector, India was upgraded to "second-world" status around a decade ago, but that's an entire other topic as well. I've seen several CNG powered vehicles on the roads around me here in Pittsburgh. Even some of our public transportation buses are powered by it. There's a CNG refueling station about 5 minutes driving distance from where I live now, right in front of a station for our local natural gas company. A few car manufacturers make cars that you can buy from the dealer that run on CNG (Ford being the biggest one that comes to mind).Quote, originally posted by Slimer »If you don't like Honda, just grab anything with a really high-power to displacement engine.Like my Vibe GT engine that makes 100 HP per liter of displacement? Or how about the old Corvette 350 ci engines that made 1 HP per c.i. of displacement? Now I like that!

[Stang2Vibe]

Quote, originally posted by Slimer »While high performance hybrids are possible and fairly easy to make, I think that emphasis should be put on introducing mass-market hybrids.I have no doubt that if this type of hybrid were to be introduced to the mass market that it would be applied to high volume sales cars first. Us persecuted enthusiasts would most likely be forced to wait at least a decade until we got cars that don't make us cringe. Or maybe they would just never produce them and ban aftermarket development of parts for them to impose the will of the evil people who want to micromanage the life of every American so we can no longer have any fun whatsoever with our vehicles. I could easily envision us being forced to drive around for the rest of our lives in little eco-hippie putmobiles. I'd have to shoot myself in the head if they ever did that, and before they ban all firearms then, too.

[Slimer]

- Right, but my ideas re: methane and biodiesel would serve the same function- it would be entirely possible to take care of our energy needs that way. Hydrogen is great in theory, but there are numerous problems; you have faith that I don't that they will be solved in the immediate future. I have total confidence that we could effect a natural gas conversion in ten years, and if it were combined with other sources of alternative energy we'd be energy independent inside of that time. I'm just too much of a stickler for scientific logic to rest any faith in possibilities, until they're made public and practical. Maybe methane is a stopgap between now and the dawn of a hydrogen economy?Also, I don't think hybrids will be "eco-hippie putmobiles"...if there's a car made now, it could also be made a hybrid. I mean, it would be child's play to creat a 180hp Viberid GT...or a Mazda6, or a BMW 3 series, or an A4, or a TT, or Golf GTI, or Subaru Impreza, or any number of other really cool mass market cars. There are an awful lot of cheap cars that make us enthusiasts all warm and tingly to go with the mommymobiles. As for India- wierd case. I think it's first-world for 1% of the population, second for 20%, and third for all the rest. Technically it's second world, but most of the population wouldn't know it....