Hybrid cars

There is a net power LOSS thru the converter. The torque increase
effect is due to the stator, not just conservation of energy (because
energy ISN'T conserved.)

 

But if the power output is less (and it must be, of course) and the
output torque is higher, then output rpm must be much lower.
Effectively a very low gear which gets higher as rpm increases - is
that right? A good trick for launching from a dead stop, but no magic
(surprise.) I am thinking of this being kind of a mini-CVT effect.

 

Uh, no.

ID claims that there are biological features which are so complex that
if any part of them is removed or altered, the system wouldn't work.
Therefore, these irreducibly complex structures and systems could not
have evolved from something simpler because nothing simpler would
work. "What good is half an eye?" Since they couldn't have evolved,
they must have been designed by an intelligent designer. Gee, I
wonder who that could be?

ID is in conflict with Darwin's theory, but not with evolution per se.
Given the indisputable evidence that animals did evolve on Earth, the
intellectual leaders of ID claim that evolution was merely the way
that Go.. I mean the Intelligent Designer did His designing. This nod
to reality is not exactly highlighted by the ID elite to the unwashed
masses. If they find out that ID admits that man is related to the
other apes, they may not be so excited about it.

 

SOME IDers say this. Certainly not all. One problem with ID theory is
that there is no central authority to say what the theory really is. My
ID ideas come from cosmology. It is based on anthropic principle.

Good point about Darwinian evolution vs evolution in general.
Creationists take great joy when evolutionary scientists argue against
some strictly Darwinian ideas. But that does not disprove evolution in
general.

 

That is correct. The stator mechanism enables it. Think about it- if you
have only an input shaft and an output shaft connected to any "black
box" clutch mechanism, then by definition the input torque must be
IDENTICAL to the output torque, regardless of difference in RPM. That
rule applies to a dry-plate clutch (slipping or not) and also applies to
a fluid clutch, but not to a torque convertor because of the presence of
the stator which can act against a (fixed) reaction shaft.

 

I am ROTFL now. All the American cars I had in the years you mentioned never
made it past 80,000 miles without a major repair that made it not
financially right to keep the thing. It wasn't until I bought a 1983 Nissan
Sentra Wagon that I had a vehicle go over 200,000 miles without a major
repair. Since then I've owned Hondas and Toyotas and repairs just isn't in
the dictionary anymore.

 

wrote in @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

I don't think it's so much of a fad as it is a resource conservation
concern. The government seems to be pushing these cars and encouraging
their development and sales. Not necessarily to save you money, but
probably to conserve the oil resources and lighten our link to foreign
countries. If everyone drove a hybrid our country would be doing better
economically in that standing, but as you point out they'd have to be a
lot more economical to the user.

 

Maybe I'm a cynic, but IMO the current government is pushing hybrids,
hydrogen, ethanol, etc. to distract the public and shut down
discussion of measures which might actually reduce fuel consumption.
The subsidy for hybrids is a tiny fraction of the subsidy for real
estate agents to buy Hummers. Throwing a little money at fuel cell
research is much cheaper and much more over-the-horizon than improving
mass transit. Any measures which might decrease fuel consumption by
monster SUVs are strictly off the table.

 

Message from Steve written on 2/2/2006 1:10 PM:

I worked for a company a few years back that had a fleet of Plymouth
Dusters (and a couple of Plymouth Fury's). I believe they were 1972
through 1974 models with the "slant-six" engine. Nearly all of them ran
200K to 300K miles with amazingly few problems. A couple exceeded 300K
miles. Extremely reliable vehicles.

The funny thing is that when the time came to replace the Dusters, the
procurement officer replaced them with Datsun B-210's, hearing that they
were a "better" car. Well, they dumped the B-210's within 1-2 years,
long before hitting 100K miles. Got tired of having to rent cars to
cover those in the shop and paying the tow bills. So, they went to GM
next after the "Datsun Fiasco", buying mostly early '80's Cavaliers and
a few late 70's Malibu's. The Chevy's didn't do as well as the
Plymouth's, but they did work out much better than the Datsun's did!

Of course these were heavily used vehicles. Most were used by the
inter-departmental couriers. So they were on the road close to 8-hours
every day of their life. Lots of stop and go, ignition cycles, etc.

 

How did you manage to keep any car from the '70s (foreign or domestic)
from turning into a huge pile of rust?

John Mara

 

Message from John Mara written on 2/4/2006 3:01 PM:

The rust problem was mostly a "snow belt" problem.

 

Message from Gordon McGrew written on 2/4/2006 11:57 AM:

Doesn't GM have a hybrid Silverado truck now? And doesn't both Ford and
Toyota have hybrid versions of some of their SUV's. I would think that
would make them more fuel efficient (if one can afford to buy them!)

 

I sold my '68 VW at >200,000 miles, I still have my '66 Peugeot at
270,000 miles (268k on the original engine), my '73 Volvo at
430,000 miles, and my '69 Renault at 160,000 miles- all running great.
Dad sold his '63 Checker at about 300,000 miles on the original
un-opened engine. My grandmother had a '74 Datsun that was sold running
great at 180k, Mom had a '74 Toyota that was sold running fine at
210k. Digging way back, even Mom's 54 Mercedes was humming along at
well over 150k, despite an episode of going 15 miles without coolant
until the cylinder heads were glowing at ~120k. Going newer, Dad had an 83
Honda that was sold at
205k, has a 92 Nissan that's still hauling loads at 215k, and my wife
has a 93 Mitsubishi with 230,000 miles.

 

Go to the Chevy web site and see how much information you can find on
this "hybrid." Then see how much information is available on the
"THUNDERING 345-HP VORTEC MAX 6000 V8"

http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/

The Ford and Toyota might theoretically save some fuel if they replace
a vehicle of equivalent size, but I don't wee many out there compared
to the number of Avalanches and Tahoes driving around. In any event,
my criticism isn't of hybrids, it's of the government policies that
throw a few crumbs at a huge problem while refusing to take the most
simple steps toward reforming defective regulations. For example,
what is the EPA fuel economy of a Hummer H2? Give up? It's a trick
question. It doesn't have one because it is not a light truck. It
doesn't count against the GM CAFE.

 

Message from Gordon McGrew written on 2/4/2006 6:39 PM:

If the government got back into this they would just mess it up worse
than it already is at best and create even worse "unintended
consequences". CAFE is a big contributor to what pushed people to buy
these monstrosities. And all because a family sedan or wagon that could
tow 5000 pounds and haul 7 people around couldn't be built any longer
and still meet CAFE. The American family still had the requirement for
vehicles with those capabilities. Enter the scene first was the minivan
(as a people mover, not so much a tow vehicle), followed by the SUV that
covers both requirements

Before you say anything, I drive a mid-sized sedan and never owned an
SUV. But when the kids were still around, we simply didn't all fit in a
"sedan" and needed at least a minivan. So that is what we had.

 

I agree. The amount of increased spending the administration is talking
about is minimal, and it is going to be directed in some wrong ways. We
don't NEED fuel cells to run our cars on hydrogen. The gasoline or
diesel engine can be easily adapted to run on hydrogen. We need the
research on how to economically OBTAIN hydrogen.

 

Just making it a hybrid does not save gas. It is how it is done- the
numbers are important.

A properly designed hybrid sizes the IC engine to equal the AVERAGE
power requirement, the electric motor to fit the difference between
desired PEAK and the AVERAGE.

Many of these so-called hybrids have very large IC engines with a small
electric motor to provide a slight performance boost. Yeah, they are
technically hybrids, but not worth much. A 300 hp IC engine and a 25
horse electric is not going to save you much gas.

 

Laugh all you want, but facts are facts.

I've never been able to nurse an Asian car past about 150k miles without
massive organ failure. They're like little toasters up until then, but
when things start to go EVERYTHING goes at once. They have a very
planned maximum life and are meant to be crushed into little cubes and
recycled when that finite time is up. Not my cup of tea.

I currently own 3 '60s and 70s vintage American cars, and the lowest
mileage one has 160k. The highest has 430k. The 430k car and the 270k
car are driven daily, the "low mileage" 160k car is a collectable
vehicle. They may need a little more maintenance along the way to 150k,
but the basic structure of the car and engine will last FOREVER if cared
for.

 

What's rust? Seriously, I don't live in the Salt Belt. Rust isn't a
problem except on a very few poorly rust-proofed American vehicles from
the 50s, and many 70s Japanese vehicles (mostly Nissans, and mostly
Z-cars for some reason- its very hard to find any rust-free 240 or 260Zs.)