Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really? The Plug-in hybrid still has a gasoline engine along with the electric motor like the prius. The only difference I can see is that a plug-in has additional batteries that provides extra "support" for distance and providing more electrical energy than gasoline energy for the engine. Today's prius can be plugged in as well when retrofitted and all that is, is adding extra batteries. To me they are basically the same but the plug-in gives more stuff.
Just went out to look at the Prius the BH'rs downstairs use... No plug in. little gas motor. Front seat is ok but the backs tight for 2 big guys. Your right it can be modified with a plug in battery @ an extra 15k and only 7 years life.... As I mentioned if they plug it in here they'll just make the coal plant run harder...........
Just went out to look at the Prius the BH'rs downstairs use... No plug in. little gas motor. Front seat is ok but the backs tight for 2 big guys. Your right it can be modified with a plug in battery @ an extra 15k and only 7 years life.... As I mentioned if they plug it in here they'll just make the coal plant run harder...........
NTC posted an interesting link to a prototype car that I hope some day sees production.
You are correct about the coal plant, but I would like to see some data on a ratio of energy produced to use between an automobile motor and that of a coal plant.
In other words, if it takes x amount of energy to move a 1ton vehicle a given distance, is it cheaper or more efficient to have this power produced on-board with an internal combustion engine or through the use of an electric motor/battery that was produced by a coal plant.
Please for the sake of us dumb ole hillbillies, display your reams of performance data showing the great success story of this current administration. Hows the economy doing? Hows that war going? How is our national credibility among the worlds nations?
Why do you childishly continue to try to redirect a thread about electric cars into a disscusion about the current administration ? I will continue to stay on topic. You should try to remain focused and do the same.
Could you please cite at least a few of the many instances where cars have been sold or leased to the public, then recalled, then all destroyed?
Here's probally one of the most famous examples. The Chrysler turbine car.
They built about 50 of them...put them out for evaluation..most people loved it, they took them all back, removed a few vital parts from the engine, put a few of them (9?) in museums etc and crushed the rest ! Note that a few have been returned to running operation by a couple of automotive enthusiasts. Here's a brief discussion from this web site Where are they now - the cars regarding the other remaiing vehicles.
" What happened to the rest?
Except for one other car which was destroyed at the proving grounds in a head-on crash test, they were all (40 remaining production cars and 5 prototype cars used in engineering) crushed and burned in the winter of 1967. From what I have been told, it was done at the Airport scrapyard near Detroit. I have talked to one of the people who was there that day. I have a video of the destruction made from the film they had to take to assure the company and the government the cars were in fact destroyed. I also have from the same individual (Mr. Bill Carry) that one car was crash tested at the proving grounds in Chelsea MI. It was done to see if any adverse or dangerous things would happen if a turbine powered car were involved in a major collision.
I have also since learned that Chrysler tried to find more museums that would take cars without any luck. Sad that more were not saved when Chrysler did it's best to make them available. "
All vehicles must meet the minimum safety standards as prescribed by the DOT in order to be certified for use upon American highways.
This is absolutly not true. In every state, including here in NJ which has a very strict motor vehicle inspection program, you can registar and drive motor vehicles which don't comply with DOT specs at all. Exceptions are given to corporate protos and experimental vehicles all the time. Look up Kit cars,street rods, experimental cars and the like. I can build a one of a kind car in my garage,register it,get it insured etc and it's not in the least DOT compliant.
Because a vehicle may possess new technologies that are untested in a mass produced environment does not mean that they didn't meet the standards to be certified for use on the road.
You don't know what you're talking about.
What if someone gets badly burned or worse, well that happens every single day with autos using technology derived from the 1800's that we use every day. What if swimming pools cause drownings, what if firearms cause death. What if a new medicine causes severe adverse effects? All of these things happen everyday, so to single out the EV1 electric car as a target of such assertions leads one to question the motives.
What was "non-compliant" about the EV1? No manufactures will expose themselves, like the Ford Pinto, the Chevy Corvair, etc...?
The EV1 was created by GM in response to the California Zero Emissions Mandate that was intended to curb the growing vehicle emissions in the state. GM then produced a viable electric car released in three generations and eventually ended up with a vehicle that was warmly received by the public and demand increased and a waiting list was created because they were selling more cars than they were producing.
So we have a new technology car that was created to comply with a law in California, ended up having to have a waiting list because demand was greater than production and instead of improving the product and making it safer, more reliable etc... like they do in all vehicles, GM lobbied to change the law in California and eventually scrapped the program.
You can can claim that the vehicle didn't reach a certain standard but you have yet to offer an explanation why a car manufacture would lobby to change a law in a state when it was the only manufacture offering a viable vehicle that conformed to the law. This would not seem to make economic sense and would be illogical to develop expensive technology, manufacture a car, then scrap it in favor of lobbying against the law that offered you an advantage over other manufactures.
For a fella who uses the Latin phrase of Res ipsa loquitur or "the thing itself speaks", you go to great lengths to avoid it being used in the very argument you are attempting to make.
As to the rest of your ramblng...As I said I havn't the time or patience to engage in conspiracy disscusions. You've demonstarted the point I was making to Burdell all too well.
As to the rest of your ramblng...As I said I havn't the time or patience to engage in conspiracy disscusions. You've demonstarted the point I was making to Burdell all too well.
And you sir have demonstrated what is known as the drive by hit piece. Someone makes an assertion, you stop by touting unknown credentials or knowledge, denounce the OP as a conspiracy while offering not one single shred of evidence to refute the claims of the OP other than the text you placed on this screen, then proclaim yourself the victor.
In other words you are trolling while not offering the rest of the posters on this forum anything but condescending rhetoric.
You are free to show us all how wrong I am, as I very well may be on everything I have mentioned but to just say so on your word doesn't amount to anything with a credible argument or evidence. It is after all your burden to prove the OP inaccurate since you refuted the claims, not ours.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by NooYowkur81
Apparently the 200mpg Carburetor is an old wives' tale.
And usually one of the more convenient barbs hurled at the auto/oil industries.
I'd love to see more new technologies come on line in the auto industry, being able to tell OPEC to take a hike might be one of the most beneficial things for the US in its history.
People need to sit back, take a hard look, and understand how good today's internal combustion powered vehicles have become. How at very reasonable cost they are able to transport 4-5 people in climate-controlled comfort at 70-80 MPH, add considerable safety with ABS, traction/stability control, air-bags, etc., and do this for 100s of 1000s if miles with relatively little maintenance compared to just 30 years ago. Replacing rhem is not going to be easy.
NTC posted an interesting link to a prototype car that I hope some day sees production.
You are correct about the coal plant, but I would like to see some data on a ratio of energy produced to use between an automobile motor and that of a coal plant.
In other words, if it takes x amount of energy to move a 1ton vehicle a given distance, is it cheaper or more efficient to have this power produced on-board with an internal combustion engine or through the use of an electric motor/battery that was produced by a coal plant.
That sounds like an engineering problem Might be able to figure it out on a BTU basis??? I'll ask one of the paper engineers when I get back to the Office......
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
In other words, if it takes x amount of energy to move a 1ton vehicle a given distance, is it cheaper or more efficient to have this power produced on-board with an internal combustion engine or through the use of an electric motor/battery that was produced by a coal plant.
Don't forget that batteries aren't limited to being charged by energy produced by combustible fuels, the possibilties also include nuclear, solar, and wind produced electricity among other sources.
Don't forget that batteries aren't limited to being charged by energy produced by combustible fuels, the possibilties also include nuclear, solar, and wind produced electricity among other sources.
When I was reading up on this, I don't recall if it was the link provided by NTC or someone else, (it may have been in this movie) but the average American's daily work commute is only like 19 or 23 miles. Even still, I live out in the boonies and I mean the b o o n i e s, and yet I could easily get by with a vehicle that has a range of 120 miles on a single charge for 95% of my commuting needs.
I am seriously considering looking at a variety of conversions for a compact car I own that already gets 35mpg along with the various hybrids that are offered today. My cost per kilowatt is dirt cheap here in Tennessee and even if the "green effect" is negligible, the benefits of doing away with the gas pump would make grin. Not to mention that I wouldn't have to worry about slapping a new set of goodyears on the mule.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Might be able to figure it out on a BTU basis??? I'll ask one of the paper engineers when I get back to the Office......
