Are you a car snob?

[MJinZ]

Point proven

But some people might... I'm saying normally cars that are not Corvettes does not mean are flat out non-entertaining in their own way.

Some people might enjoy driving and getting huge fuel economy.

 

[EightySix Four]

But some people might... I'm saying normally cars that are not Corvettes does not mean are flat out non-entertaining in their own way.

Some people might enjoy driving and getting huge fuel economy.

Now read what I said again.

No.

I can appreciate the Prius' technological advances, but there is a big difference between riding in a car from point a to point b, and driving a car. A Prius does not give you a choice, it is a car you ride in, no enjoyment. Sure, I like tech and computers when they improve the things I like to do, I can appreciate tech that doesn't improve what I like, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give up what I have for it.

I don't hate on other people driving prius', but I don't consider people driving them to be car enthusiasts.

 

[jlee]

Sure, if by 'fun' you mean 'better than walking.

If you take a new driver and give them any car that drives, I'm sure they'd tell you it was fun too. That doesn't mean it's going to be fun for those of us who have real cars..

 

[DivideBYZero]

I must admit I enjoy driving ANY vehicle, even if I pronouce it as being shit later on I can still enjoy driving anything.

 

[Zenmervolt]

WHOA! This is just . . . not . . . true! I see this stated time and time again in arguments like this, and it is a self-serving rhetorical fudge of the facts!

The EPA combined of a Prius is 50mpg, that of a Golf TDI w/manual (chosen to present the best case for this Rudolf D. cycle engine) is 34mpg.

50 is not "similar" to 34! It just isn't! And this doesn't even take into account the decisively higher cost of diesel fuel! Given that higher cost, the projected cost premium per year of operating a TDI is over 50% higher than a Prius.

And actual observed mileage in the Prius is about 45 mpg if you drive it like a normal person instead of hypermiling and disrupting traffic while owners of the Jetta TDI wagon report real-world averages of about 38 mpg. Not equal, but definitely comparable.

I've gotten to drive several Pri-i. I believe your statement to be a gross exaggeration, to put it mildly.

Also, you have apparently never had the pleasure of driving a VW bus. I have, I've owned 3 of them. Death grip on the steering wheel, I've been blown 3-4 feet sideways, no exaggeration.

No exaggeration at all. I have several thousand miles in Priuses and the simple fact is that they are blown around more than even the extended Econoline 150 I've driven. No passenger vehicle I have ever driven is as affected by crosswinds as the Prius. I haven't driven a microbus, however, and I do know that the VW Transporters are infamous for being awful in crosswinds.

Not true. If tomorrow a non-hybrid that sat 5 with reasonably copious luggage room getting 50 combined on the newer EPA cycle came along, it wouldn't be "just another econobox."

The Prius is cheaply built (the center console, for example, feels as though it will snap if you lean on it hard) and the interior is covered with cheap plastic. The steering is numb and the car wallows through corners like a ship taking on water. It sacrifices interior quality and drivability for mileage. The car offers up everything at the altar of MPG and the result is an interior that causes a first impression of, "I paid $22,000 for this?" and handling feel that is bested by a Grand Marquis.

Also, I must issue yet another "wretched rhetorical excess" alert! The Prius is not "just another econobox", the EPA lists it as a mid-size vehicle based on, you know, the FACTS.

Since when does "econobox" imply an EPA size class? Just because you want to believe that I've said something doesn't mean that I've actually said it.

Even given that VW's often outperform their EPA estimates real world (a fact I impute in part to the fact that the people who buy them tend to be FAR more intelligent enthusiast drivers) and that bozos without a clue often complain that their stupid lead feet can't replicate the Prius' EPA estimates, the mileage and mileage COST superiority of the Prius is STILL there.

Otoh, hypermilers (going downhill, downwind, ect., etc. ad infinitum) report 90mpg with Pri-i ZOMG, ZOMG, ZOMG! MY point is not that this is realistic, just that the Prius wins the upside comparison by a first round knockout and that the overall results, even real world, and especially controlled for the driver's ability, distinctly favor the Prius.

Yes, it has an advantage, but not by nearly as much as people think provided that one doesn't drive it in a way that fouls traffic.

"Perfectly adequate car" is the BEST that can be said about it? More rhetorical BS, say I! It's a technological tour de force!

This is a TECH forum, fer crissakes! Your attitude towards the Prius, which so many others here seem to share, is analogous to looking at the ENIAC and having your main response being, pfffft, I'm keeping my typewriter and number 2 pencil and notepad . . . you can get number 2 pencils free after rebate at Staples . . . and notepads are significantly lighter and space efficent than the ENIAC . . . blah, blah, blah.

Tech for tech's sake is just absurd. The Prius may well be a "technological tour de force", but for all of that "technological tour de force" the net result is a car with a chintzy interior, glacial acceleration, and handling that is inferior to a 1986 Ford Festiva. Despite massive amounts of technology, the end result of the Prius is that, as a car, it is adequate. As a tech demonstration it's fantastic, but that's rather irrelevant to the driving experience.

Here's the deal. With DI the diesel is approaching the outer limits of its development potential, whereas battery tech will eventually take off beyond anything now commericailly available.

So, keep praising your horse and buggy, my crude, smoke belching Model T will bury you!

Batteries have the inherent problem of charge time; there's simply no way to get around the frankly ridiculous amperage/voltage requirements if one wants to charge a battery pack in the <5 minute period it takes to refuel a conventional vehicle. Nothing is going to change that. If you want the future, look to the Honda FCX Calrity. The Prius represents a stop-gap, but it's Hydrogen that I see being the long-term solution.

What I'm trying to say, all inflated rhetoric aside, is that I just don't cotton to all the Prius hate from others (not you, ZV) here -- it seems short-sighted and outsized given our tech-loving roots.

This I can agree with. As I've said, the Prius isn't a bad car; it certainly doesn't deserve hatred. Still, I can't muster any more emotion for a Prius than I can for my blender, and I'm a man who can find passion for a 240-series Volvo station wagon. Even from a technology standpoint, I see the Prius as a distraction from cars like the FCX Clarity. The Prius and Insight and other hybrids are effectively blind alleys IMO.

ZV

 

[EightySix Four]

This I can agree with. As I've said, the Prius isn't a bad car; it certainly doesn't deserve hatred. Still, I can't muster any more emotion for a Prius than I can for my blender, and I'm a man who can find passion for a 240-series Volvo station wagon. Even from a technology standpoint, I see the Prius as a distraction from cars like the FCX Clarity. The Prius and Insight and other hybrids are effectively blind alleys IMO.

ZV

I don't think distraction is the best term. Even if we could suddenly build the infrastructure overnight to support shipping Hydrogen, we wouldn't have the production capabilities necessary to create hydrogen. Seeing the Prius as a stopgap makes more sense.

Build a ton of nuke plants and then we are talking.

Some prototype Generation IV reactors operate at 850 to 1000 degrees Celsius, considerably hotter than existing commercial nuclear power plants. General Atomics predicts that hydrogen produced in a High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (HTGR) would cost $1.53/kg. In 2003, steam reforming of natural gas yielded hydrogen at $1.40/kg. At 2005 gas prices, hydrogen cost $2.70/kg.[citation needed] Hence, just within the United States, a savings of tens of billions of dollars per year is possible with a nuclear-powered supply. Much of this savings would translate into reduced oil and natural gas imports.

 

[Zenmervolt]

I don't think distraction is the best term. Even if we could suddenly build the infrastructure overnight to support Hydrogen, we wouldn't have the production capabilities necessary to create enough hydrogen. Seeing the Prius as a stopgap makes more sense.

Build a ton of nuke plants and then we are talking.

I tend to think that we have quite enough gasoline to power a conventional fleet until Hydrogen comes on line. Hybrids take the pressure off by providing the illusion that investment in hydrogen isn't critical and there are a disturbing number of people who appear to think that hybrids are adequate into the long-term future.

If all the people who are working on electric cars and hybrids were working on hydrogen instead, we'd reach the point where hydrogen was viable nationally (as opposed to just a small area in southern California) much sooner.

ZV

 

[EightySix Four]

I tend to think that we have quite enough gasoline to power a conventional fleet until Hydrogen comes on line. Hybrids take the pressure off by providing the illusion that investment in hydrogen isn't critical and there are a disturbing number of people who appear to think that hybrids are adequate into the long-term future.

If all the people who are working on electric cars and hybrids were working on hydrogen instead, we'd reach the point where hydrogen was viable nationally (as opposed to just a small area in southern California) much sooner.

ZV

With what production method? Where are we getting the electricity to produce it from?

 

[PricklyPete]

With what production method? Where are we getting the electricity to produce it from?

From China of course...that's where we get everything.

Being serious, I agree with ZV that hybrids are just filling a hole until the real next gen stuff comes out. I like the direction the Volt is taking since its drive train is completely electric and where it gets that power from is modular. With this design, they will be able to constantly improve the drivetrain and just swap out the power source as new better options come along...and I'm expecting that better option to be a Fuel Cell some time down the line.

There is no denying that the FCX Clarity is a really impressive piece of engineering.

You make a good point on the hydrogen and its source. But since hydrogen itself is not reliant on oil to be created it just does not bother me as much. Coal, nuclear, oil, hydro, wind, solar, and future developments can all be used to create the hydrogen needed...so there is a lot of room for development right there that is not restricted to a single resource. I like that as an option a lot more than being reliant on oil alone.

 

[DivideBYZero]

With what production method? Where are we getting the electricity to produce it from?

Solar towers making electricity to produce Hydrogen.

 

[Throckmorton]

From China of course...that's where we get everything.

Being serious, I agree with ZV that hybrids are just filling a hole until the real next gen stuff comes out. I like the direction the Volt is taking since its drive train is completely electric and where it gets that power from is modular. With this design, they will be able to constantly improve the drivetrain and just swap out the power source as new better options come along...and I'm expecting that better option to be a Fuel Cell some time down the line.

There is no denying that the FCX Clarity is a really impressive piece of engineering.

You make a good point on the hydrogen and its source. But since hydrogen itself is not reliant on oil to be created it just does not bother me as much. Coal, nuclear, oil, hydro, wind, solar, and future developments can all be used to create the hydrogen needed...so there is a lot of room for development right there that is not restricted to a single resource. I like that as an option a lot more than being reliant on oil alone.

Hybrids aren't just filling a hole. Hybrids are THE technology for today and the near future. Unless there is some huge battery breakthrough, full electric range will be limited. It doesn't take much to include a small engine and dynamo to charge the batteries and greatly extend range. With that addition, an electric car goes from being "impractical, maybe good for commutes, but what if I need to drive further?" to completely practical.

 

[Zenmervolt]

With what production method? Where are we getting the electricity to produce it from?

The same place that Perk's electric cars of the future are getting those mythical batteries that can be recharged in <5 minutes and offer a range over 200 miles while weighing less than half of current batteries.

There definitely need to be breakthroughs for hydrogen, but based on what I've read those breakthroughs appear more feasible than the breakthroughs necessary for battery technology to become truly viable. Battery technology seems to be limited by more fundamental issues while hydrogen production appears to be an issue of implementation rather than of operational theory.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Hybrids aren't just filling a hole. Hybrids are THE technology for today and the near future. Unless there is some huge battery breakthrough, full electric range will be limited. It doesn't take much to include a small engine and dynamo to charge the batteries and greatly extend range. With that addition, an electric car goes from being "impractical, maybe good for commutes, but what if I need to drive further?" to completely practical.

Something that is only useful for the "near future" and is fully expected to be supplanted is pretty much the definition of a "stop gap", so I don't see where you're really disagreeing here.

ZV

 

[StageLeft]

Solar towers making electricity to produce Hydrogen.

OK, but how will you get electricity in England?

heh heh

---

Hybrid technology will be in all future cars, it just makes sense to use braking power to store it as energy. As a primary fuel source well hydrogen will be in hardly any cars even a decade from now, I'm sure of it. That is unless some major energy crisis hits or the government actually gives a damn about this kind of thing, neither of which I really see happening.

 

[EightySix Four]

The same place that Perk's electric cars of the future are getting those mythical batteries that can be recharged in <5 minutes and offer a range over 200 miles while weighing less than half of current batteries.

There definitely need to be breakthroughs for hydrogen, but based on what I've read those breakthroughs appear more feasible than the breakthroughs necessary for battery technology to become truly viable. Battery technology seems to be limited by more fundamental issues while hydrogen production appears to be an issue of implementation rather than of operational theory.

ZV

Hydrogen is not a fuel source, it is an energy container, it just happens to be more efficient than most of our other options once we can come up with a viable production method. People need to stop looking at hydrogen = gas.

Hydrogen = instant recharge batteries. The power still has to come from somewhere.

 

[PricklyPete]

Hydrogen is not a fuel source, it is an energy container, it just happens to be more efficient than most of our other options once we can come up with a viable production method. People need to stop looking at hydrogen = gas.

Hydrogen = instant recharge batteries. The power still has to come from somewhere.

To be honest I'm not getting your point. So you are saying Hydrogen is not a fuel like gasoline...but rather it is analogous to a battery? I think they are all the same...they are all stores of energy...hydrogen and gasoline being more practical than a battery.

Now how we get this stored energy and how it is used is much different...but they are all energy stores that can be used to propel a vehicle when fed to an applicable drivetrain.

 

[DivideBYZero]

OK, but how will you get electricity in England?

heh heh

.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8564662.stm

:awe:

 

[EightySix Four]

To be honest I'm not getting your point. So you are saying Hydrogen is not a fuel like gasoline...but rather it is analogous to a battery? I think they are all the same...they are all stores of energy...hydrogen and gasoline being more practical than a battery.

Now how we get this stored energy and how it is used is much different...but they are all energy stores that can be used to propel a vehicle when fed to an applicable drivetrain.

Hydrogen and batteries both require us to produce the energy in some other way before they are usable. Oil has already collected it's energy, we just have to do a comparatively small amount of work to get to the oil.

So in comparison to oil, hydrogen and batteries are just storage mediums for energy we produce. Oil has already captured that energy and we just use it. So we need to consider hydrogen as a way of getting nuclear (for example) energy into usable form for transportation.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Hydrogen is not a fuel source, it is an energy container, it just happens to be more efficient than most of our other options once we can come up with a viable production method. People need to stop looking at hydrogen = gas.

Hydrogen = instant recharge batteries. The power still has to come from somewhere.

The power to create the hydrogen you mean? Like the energy required to refine crude oil?

Unprocessed crude is essentially useless and refining requires energy input as well. Yes, current methods of hydrogen production require more input energy than refineries do, but this is, as I said, an implementation issue.

Fuel cells derive their energy by combining hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is not equivalent to "instant recharge batteries", but rather much more akin to a replacement reactant (e.g. the "acid" or the lead plates in a typical car battery) than to the battery as a whole unit. Energy is not "stored" in hydrogen any more than it is "stored" in gasoline.

There is no process to add energy to hydrogen before it gets to the fuel cell. Hydrogen, like gasoline, has an inherent amount of energy that can be released and while "refining" hydrogen does require energy, this is not a process which is in any way analogous to recharging a battery.

ZV

 

[EightySix Four]

The power to create the hydrogen you mean? Like the energy required to refine crude oil?

Unprocessed crude is essentially useless and refining requires energy input as well. Yes, current methods of hydrogen production require more input energy than refineries do, but this is, as I said, an implementation issue.

Fuel cells derive their energy by combining hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is not equivalent to "instant recharge batteries", but rather much more akin to a replacement reactant (e.g. the "acid" or the lead plates in a typical car battery) than to the battery as a whole unit. Energy is not "stored" in hydrogen any more than it is "stored" in gasoline.

There is no process to add energy to hydrogen before it gets to the fuel cell. Hydrogen, like gasoline, has an inherent amount of energy that can be released and while "refining" hydrogen does require energy, this is not a process which is in any way analogous to recharging a battery.

ZV

Energy required to refine a barrel of oil < energy in a barrel of refined oil.

Energy it take to mass produce hydrogen > energy than that contained in the hydrogen produced

The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely. The efficiency is a measure of what fraction of electrical energy used is actually contained within the hydrogen. Some of the electrical energy is converted to heat, a useless byproduct. Some reports quote efficiencies between 50&#37; and 70%[1] This efficiency is based on the Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen. The Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen is total thermal energy released when hydrogen is combusted minus the latent heat of vaporisation of the water. This does not represent the total amount of energy within the hydrogen, hence the efficiency is lower than a more strict definition. Other reports quote the theoretical maximum efficiency of electrolysis as being between 80% and 94%.[2]. The theoretical maximum considers the total amount of energy absorbed by both the hydrogen and oxygen. These values refer only to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included. For instance, when considering a power plant that converts the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the total efficiency is more likely to be between 25% and 40%.[3]

 

[angminas]

If somebody wants to be a snob about what kind of car they drive, I say- great, go ahead. Get the most for your money. Enjoy your ride. Savor the feel. Make your huge purchase one you will enjoy for years. Don't let the crowd tell you what kind of car you have to drive.

And therefore, totally shut up about other people's cars. It's so pathetic when people crap on each other because they bought a Mustang instead of a Camaro. Why do you care? It's not your car, it's not your money, it's not your business. Seriously- shut up, MYOB, and fill the hole in your life that's making you act like a bully.

 

[amdhunter]

Don't you have a Jetta or did you buy the bimmer?

lol Jetta. :sneaky:

 

[Zenmervolt]

Refining process for a barrel of oil < energy in a barrel of refined oil.

Energy it take to mass produce hydrogen > energy than that contained in the hydrogen produced

This I agree with. I get you now.

However, even with this "bad trade" in terms of energy, hydrogen is still produced at prices per kg roughly on par with prices per gallon of gasoline, the FCX Clarity manages a bit over 70 miles per kg of hydrogen, and it is possible to effectively duplicate the convenience of gasoline with hydrogen.

Also, even at 40% efficiency to produce hydrogen, this is still better than gasoline, which only manage 18% to 20% efficiency in just the engine itself, if we account for driveline losses to get a "tank to wheels" number, we're talking about 16% to 17.5% efficiency. The FCX Clarity operates at at claimed 60% efficiency from tank to wheels, so even combined with the inefficiency of producing hydrogen, the total system efficiency of the FCX Clarity is, at 24%, superior to current gasoline engines even if we assume that refining is 100% efficient.

As implementations for "refining" hydrogen improve, so will the overall efficiencies of the total hydrogen system.

ZV

 

[CraigRT]

I don't think so.... I like nice cars, but I had to sell my Altima 3.5SE 5MT a few years ago to go to school, and I bought an $800 base model Saturn with grey bumpers because I had no money during that time.

Shit happens... BTW I loved that Saturn, never let me down, wicked on gas, and is cheap as shit to repair.

I have another Nissan again, but its because I'm a car guy, not a car snob..

 

[EightySix Four]

This I agree with. I get you now.

However, even with this "bad trade" in terms of energy, hydrogen is still produced at prices per kg roughly on par with prices per gallon of gasoline, the FCX Clarity manages a bit over 70 miles per kg of hydrogen, and it is possible to effectively duplicate the convenience of gasoline with hydrogen.

Also, even at 40&#37; efficiency to produce hydrogen, this is still better than gasoline, which only manage 18% to 20% efficiency in just the engine itself, if we account for driveline losses to get a "tank to wheels" number, we're talking about 16% to 17.5% efficiency. The FCX Clarity operates at at claimed 60% efficiency from tank to wheels, so even combined with the inefficiency of producing hydrogen, the total system efficiency of the FCX Clarity is, at 24%, superior to current gasoline engines even if we assume that refining is 100% efficient.

As implementations for "refining" hydrogen improve, so will the overall efficiencies of the total hydrogen system.

ZV

There's where the problem comes from, refining is MORE than 100% efficient. It produces more energy than what comes out. I don't know the amount of energy required to refine a gallon of gasoline, but it is less than what the 1 gallon has in it.

So if you add the efficiency of the refining process, oil has a higher end to end efficiency than hydrogen (right now).

here's some unsubstantiated shit from a google search:
To extract one gallon of gasoline (or equivalent distillate): 9.66 kWh
To refine that gallon: 2.73 kWh additional energy.
Total: 12.39 kWh per gallon

One gallon of gasoline is 33kWh.

On the other hand, it takes 70kWh to create one liquid kg of hydrogen.
Assuming 40% conversion, that means each kg of hydrogen = 28kWh

One gallon of gas (33kWh) will get say 35mpg.
One kg of hydrogen gets 70mpg.

So two gallons of gas = 24.78kWh of energy spent getting 70 miles
1kg of hydrogen = 70kWh spent getting 70 miles

Nearly 3x as efficient to produce the gasoline.