Another compelling reason for fossile fuel cars :D

No time to read the article.... But I drove one hybrid in my life and it drove like a P.O.S. That's compelling enough for me.
 
Government, like the annoying @ss%$£€ at the party that nobody wants but because its his house they deal with it.
 
Swanicyouth said:
No time to read the article.... But I drove one hybrid in my life and it drove like a P.O.S. That's compelling enough for me.
Click to expand...

I'm sure these aren't POS:

Porsche Panamera S E-Hybrid - Porsche Cars North America

LaFerrari: the most extreme performance ever achieved by a Ferrari.

BMW Hybrid Cars : BMW ActiveHybrid

That's kind of like saying you drove a Pinto or a Chevette and it was a POS therefore internal combustion cars suck. A Prius or most any hybrid until recently was targeted for the appliance market, not the enthusiast market. Things will come around.

I think the most interesting, technically speaking, is the high end AWD cars where the electric portion only drives one end, so it reduces overlapping drivetrain components...or maybe better described as adding less drivetrain components.
 
I have never owned a hybrid, but I have driven several.

Infiniti M Hybrid as a loaner car. Power was jerky, interface between gas and batteries poorly integrated and uncomfortable. Mileage was just about the same. Guess that's why it did not sell and ended up in the loaner fleet.

Prius -not too badly integrated, just weird feeling but much better than the infiniti

Caddy Escalade Hybrid-best of the bunch in terms of drivability, gas mileage not much better in town. Did not drive LD.

Toyota Camry Hybrid-Slow and jerky

Tesla 100% battery. Went to a test drive-I could rock that daily as long as the charging station and batteries could deal with my mileage needs. I drive up to and over 300 miles in a day, several times a month and that is the limit of the largest battery pack.

I hope the technology keeps evolving so that we get better control over our reliance on foreign oil. I hope it will safe me some $ too. I have no doubt that better systems will be seen in my lifetime and in my children's perhaps the Jetson's car will be a reality? Why not, we have the Apple watch and the facetime call already??
 
EVs that depend on coal for their electricity are actually 17 percent to 27 percent worse than diesel or gas engines. That is especially bad for the United States, because we derive close to 45 percent of our electricity from coal. In states like Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, that number is much closer to 100 percent. That’s right folks; for residents of some of the most populous states, buying an EV is not only toxic, it’s warming the planet more than its gas-powered counterparts
Click to expand...
- Environmental Impact | EVs might be more damaging than you think | Digital Trends

I really never understood why electric cars are being pushed so hard in the US. Nor do I understand E85. It burns at a lower BTU than gasoline, which produces less power and interprets to burning more fuel. On top of that, the equipment to farm, transport, etc. the materials for ethanol still use fossil fuels and we're stressing a food supply.

I think we should stop being so ludicrous and focusing on alternative fuels when we (the US) have so many regulations that we won't allow vehicles that are really fuel efficient on our roads or power plants that produce less pollutants to exist. 70+MPG is not only possible, but the cars exist in other countries. What's more environmentally friendly, 70MPG with slightly higher emissions per gallon or 30MPG with less emissions?
 
RDKC said:
- Environmental Impact | EVs might be more damaging than you think | Digital Trends

I really never understood why electric cars are being pushed so hard in the US. Nor do I understand E85. It burns at a lower BTU than gasoline, which produces less power and interprets to burning more fuel. On top of that, the equipment to farm, transport, etc. the materials for ethanol still use fossil fuels and we're stressing a food supply.

I think we should stop being so ludicrous and focusing on alternative fuels when we (the US) have so many regulations that we won't allow vehicles that are really fuel efficient on our roads or power plants that produce less pollutants to exist. 70+MPG is not only possible, but the cars exist in other countries. What's more environmentally friendly, 70MPG with slightly higher emissions per gallon or 30MPG with less emissions?
Click to expand...


Interesting article. Thanks.

Now waiting for the nay sayers or the, "well it's new technology, we need to give it a chance" crowd to chime in.
 
Let's just agree that economics will play a much bigger roll in the development and availability of ANY new technology relating to the personal transportation industry.

One only needs to look at film photography and its demise because of the development of digital photography. Film was king at one time, as were the purveyors of that medium (Kodak, Polaroid, Fuji). Now they have been replaced by smartphones, digital cameras, computers and their purveyors.

The same could be said of the internal combustion engine. The basis design and principle has not changed that much since its invention ( the rotary Wankel being an exception). Other forms of combustion engines, like the turbine, just have not been produced as an economically viable alternative for engine-powered-vehicle.

I do maintain that the use of ethanol (grain alcohol) is NOT a viable economic-alternative to fossil fuel. We need that grain to feed the world population. Current US government subsidies, if removed, would collapse the ethanol market, given current fossil fuel (IE, oil) market prices.

That said, who is to say that the science-fiction Star Trek idea of "Beam me up, Scotty" is not on the reality horizon. What we thought was impossible is now in every-day use. Dick Tracy's talking communication watch (yes, I am dating myself!) is now an I-watch. My deceased Dad remembers of reading of going to the moon in the early 30's. That became reality in July, 1969. Someday "transporter" travel will replace the personal transportation we have today. In the mean time, I'll enjoy today's Corvettes, V-Spec Cadillacs, V-8 Mustangs and Camaros, and supercharged Hemi Challengers and Chargers. I can say, "long-live the internal combustion engine", but I and you both know its days are numbered.
 
Lonnie said:
Let's just agree that economics will play a much bigger roll in the development and availability of ANY new technology relating to the personal transportation industry.

One only needs to look at film photography and its demise because of the development of digital photography. Film was king at one time, as were the purveyors of that medium (Kodak, Polaroid, Fuji). Now they have been replaced by smartphones, digital cameras, computers and their purveyors.

The same could be said of the internal combustion engine. The basis design and principle has not changed that much since its invention ( the rotary Wankel being an exception). Other forms of combustion engines, like the turbine, just have not been produced as an economically viable alternative for engine-powered-vehicle..
Click to expand...

So,I do agree that economics will play a very large role in the future of the automotive industry. However, your comparison of film to an internal combustion engine is pretty far fetched. If that theory were true then we would not be using anything that predates the 20th century. The concept of using a sharp blade to cut something has been wildly popular for a very long time. The common utensil of choice - knives. "The basis design and principle" is still the same. Yes, lasers would be cool but they are not exactly ideal for a multitude of reasons. The least of which is the price tag.

Point is, some things just work. The internal combustion engine has changed drastically since the first one was made and changes will continue to be made.

Americans need to understand two things:

1. Our government has so many regulations that prohibit environmentally friendly power. From nuclear plants to more efficient vehicles.

2. Power and efficiency go hand in hand. We don't need to find ways to burn unburned fuel, we need to find ways to burn the fuel in the first place. The more fuel that burns in the combustion chamber, the more power is generated. More power means both less fuel is required (compared to a less fuel efficient engine) and lower pollutants.

There is nothing wrong with the internal combustion engine. There is everything wrong with the people that only care about lining their pockets instead of creating the best product.

EDIT: I have nothing against alternative fuels or powertrains. I just get tired of political propaganda contradicting reality.
 
Last edited:
Carbon footprint on a prius battery is more then the life of my 72 skylark ha

Tje new thing is hydrogen cell cars
So far i think cali just has them

Toyota, honda and hyundai have a hydrogen cell vehicle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top