Save the environment, screw the Hybrids!

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
I found this to be quite interesting and highly ironic to be honest. Turns out we can make internal combustion engines that are far, far, far cleaner than hybrid engines.

The only problems are that the government wont let carmakers sell them and they just don't have that "I'm driving a Hybrid for the environment" catch phrase that Sheryl Crow and her ilk love so much.......

http://autos.msn.com/advice/ar...ntid=4024974&GT1=10365

Dirty Secret: Green Cars
Automakers Won't Sell You


advertisement
Dirty Secret: Green Cars
Automakers Won't Sell You
Lawrence Ulrich

On a recent run from Boston to Cape Cod, I test drove the 2008 Honda Accord, the latest version of this family favorite. The new Accord boasts an environmental first: a six-cylinder gasoline engine that's cleaner than many hybrid systems.

There's only one catch: You can't actually buy this ultra-green Accord, or the four-cylinder version that also produces near-zero pollution. That is, unless you live in California, New York or six other northeast states that follow California's tougher pollution rules. Only there can you buy this Accord, or the roughly two dozen other models that meet so-called Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle standards, PZEV for short.

Related Link: 2008 Honda Accord Preview

Not only can't you buy one, but the government says it's currently illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states. Under terms of the Clean Air Act?in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off?anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500. Volvo sent its dealers a memo alerting them to this fact, noting that its greenest S40 and V50 models were only for the special states.

So, just how green is a PZEV machine? Well, if you just cut your lawn with a gas mower, congratulations, you just put out more pollution in one hour than these cars do in 2,000 miles of driving. Grill a single juicy burger, and you've cooked up the same hydrocarbon emissions as a three-hour drive in a Ford Focus PZEV. As the California Air Resources Board has noted, the tailpipe emissions of these cars can be cleaner than the outside air in smoggy cities.

That's amazing stuff. But what's more amazing is how few people have a clue that the gas-powered, internal combustion engine could ever be this clean.

Naturally, no company wants to bring too much attention to a car that most people can't buy, unless it's Ferrari. And there's the catch. PZEV models are already available from Toyota, Ford, Honda, GM, Subaru, Volvo and VW. They're scrubbed-up versions of familiar models, from the VW Jetta to the Subaru Outback. But chances are, you've never heard of them.


These cars aren't the only green leaf that's being dangled over our heads. The sweet-looking, sporty-handling Nissan Altima Hybrid borrows its hybrid system from the Toyota Camry, and sipped fuel at 32 mpg during my week-long test drive here in New York. But once again, if you'd love to buy the Nissan and burn less fuel, you're out of luck?unless you live in California or the Northeast.

Read more about "green" gasoline-powered vehicles

It's not all the fault of the car companies. The crazy quilt of environmental regulations is forcing carmakers to design and build two versions of the same cars. And it costs real money to make a car this green. So in states where there are no regulations to force their hand,automakers don't want to have to boost their prices for the green versions?or to simply eat the extra cost and make less profit.

Honda appears to be doing just that. It currently charges Californians and other green-staters about $150 extra for these solid-citizen models. But experts suggest that it costs carmakers closer to $400 a pop to install the gear.

Another issue: The PZEV cars don't get any better mileage than conventional versions. Would most self-interested Americans even pay a lousy 100 bucks for cleaner air that doesn't put fuel savings back in their pocket? "With hybrids, the selling point is fuel economy, so there's a dollar amount on that," said William Walton, Honda's product planning chief for U.S. cars. "We want to give people the cleanest vehicles we can produce, but how much are people willing to pay for clean air?"
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,783
6,341
126
""I'm driving a Hybrid for the environment" catch phrase that Sheryl Crow and her ilk love so much......."

They/They're saying that because it was/is(in many situations as the article points out) true. If an ICE can be made that clean, great, but don't be hatin on people for having opinions on ICE when it was certainly true to hold those opinions when they stated them.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Your argument isn't very good and the author of the article kind of avoids the obvious. The problem is weak federal regulation -- and in some cases completely backasswards. The article also focuses on emissions and not fuel consumption. While both are important, ignoring one completely to make your argument is asinine. The engines aren't "far far cleaner," they're rated the same.

Don't get me wrong, decreasing emissions is extremely important, but so is fuel mileage. I'm hardly the biggest proponent of hybrids, but your argument is BS.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I agree that the argument is just not BS. To start out, there is a definite relationship between weight and fuel consumption. The very idea of a hybrid adds the extra weight of very heavy batteries, a heavy generator, and very heavy DC electric motors to the conventional wisdom of a heavy gasoline motor. In a urban stop and go traffic condition, the extra weight may pay for itself because the kinetic energy of motion can be converted back into electricity energy rather than be wasted in conventional braking which simply converts motion into heat. And rather than have the engine consume fuel idling while the automobile is stationary or near stationary, its possible to keep moving under battery power without the gasoline engine starting or wasting fuel while idling.

But its still not a zero sum game, the gasoline engine still generates the electrical power and the conversion is not anywhere near 100% efficient. And for the type of driving I tend to do which is anything but urban driving conditions, a hybrid vehicle is going to be a net waster of gasoline and a greater polluter. If nothing else, because of the greater weight.

The point being, its situational depending on the driving conditions. Just because a hybrid may not be good for me does not mean a hybrid is always a bad environmental choice for someone else. And where the driving conditions are optimal for a hybrid, a hybrid is the best available choice for the environment.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
The article is clearly flawed. After briefly reading up on these types of "engines," I found that they don't change the engines themselves at all. They change the way that exhaust is handled, primarily by treating the catalytic converter. This will never reduce carbon dioxide emissions, though it could significantly reduce emissions of hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides, which are considerably more potent pollutants than CO2.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The article is clearly flawed. ....
Agreed. In particular, I question the claim the "government" won't let the auto makers sell these cars elsewhere. The author offers nothing substantive to explain this claim. While I suspect it may be technically true, I'd guess it's really because the automakers haven't bothered to certify these vehicles for 50-state sales, and don't want to do so. If the automakers chose to sell the "green" versions throughout the U.S., they could.
 

Uhtrinity

Platinum Member
Dec 21, 2003
2,263
202
106
Originally posted by: Strk
Your argument isn't very good and the author of the article kind of avoids the obvious. The problem is weak federal regulation -- and in some cases completely backasswards. The article also focuses on emissions and not fuel consumption. While both are important, ignoring one completely to make your argument is asinine. The engines aren't "far far cleaner," they're rated the same.

Don't get me wrong, decreasing emissions is extremely important, but so is fuel mileage. I'm hardly the biggest proponent of hybrids, but your argument is BS.


Exactly, lower emissions without greater fuel mileage won't have much of an impact in the long run. Does anyone know if emission is based off of how much fuel is burned or is it a value / average time? How would that rate with a PZEV: Partial Zero Emission Vehicle that gets 30mpg, vs a ULEV: Ultra Low Emission Vehicle that gets 70mpg?

I had to laugh at, "and sipped fuel at 32 mpg during my week-long test drive here in New York." I'm sorry, from my perspective 32 mpg isn't sipping. My 1997 Saturn got better than 32mpg. My current car gets more than twice that under the same driving conditions and is a true sipper, as well as having an ULEV emission rating.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
There's nothing stopping auto manufacturers from selling the California spec cars in every state. It's their choice to make CA specific models.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Deudalus
I found this to be quite interesting and highly ironic to be honest. Turns out we can make internal combustion engines that are far, far, far cleaner than hybrid engines.

The only problems are that the government wont let carmakers sell them and they just don't have that "I'm driving a Hybrid for the environment" catch phrase that Sheryl Crow and her ilk love so much.......

Nothing new here.

Many foriegn cars in the early 80's got 50 mpg.

They were told to bring down the mpg or no longer sell in the U.S.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Nothing new here.

Many foriegn cars in the early 80's got 50 mpg.

They were told to bring down the mpg or no longer sell in the U.S.
Links?
 

Uhtrinity

Platinum Member
Dec 21, 2003
2,263
202
106
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Nothing new here.

Many foriegn cars in the early 80's got 50 mpg.

They were told to bring down the mpg or no longer sell in the U.S.
Links?

Not so sure of the 80's. but in the early to mid 90's Geo and Honda had cars that would get into the low to mid 50's. Honda did it with using lean burn, like my Insight.
 

Gneisenau

Senior member
May 30, 2007
264
0
0
Then energy cost of hybrid car from dust to dust is higher than conventional cars.
see http://www.addisonlee.com/green/dust-to-dust/ for one report. There are others out there.
Some hybrids have higher energy costs dust to dust than SUVs.

I have also seen reports about pollution being higher in hybrids dust to dust than conventional cars also. In that case the problem resides in the batteries. The manufacture of the batteries is a very high pollution generating technologies.

This isn't to say that further advances in manufacturing of hybrids and their batteries wont eventually bring them under that of conventional cars, but as of right now, they may do more enviromental damage than their conventional counterparts.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Exactly, lower emissions without greater fuel mileage won't have much of an impact in the long run. Does anyone know if emission is based off of how much fuel is burned or is it a value / average time? How would that rate with a PZEV: Partial Zero Emission Vehicle that gets 30mpg, vs a ULEV: Ultra Low Emission Vehicle that gets 70mpg?
If you know the gas mileage of a vehicle, it's trivial to calculate the total carbon output. However, you'd need a detailed analysis of the exhaust to know exactly what kind of emissions you're putting out, since this depends on a number of factors such as temperature of your engine and catalytic converter, design of the catalytic converter, fuel:air ratio in the input, etc...
 

Gneisenau

Senior member
May 30, 2007
264
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Deudalus
I found this to be quite interesting and highly ironic to be honest. Turns out we can make internal combustion engines that are far, far, far cleaner than hybrid engines.

The only problems are that the government wont let carmakers sell them and they just don't have that "I'm driving a Hybrid for the environment" catch phrase that Sheryl Crow and her ilk love so much.......

Nothing new here.

Many foriegn cars in the early 80's got 50 mpg.

They were told to bring down the mpg or no longer sell in the U.S.

You're kidding right? I'm calling BS on this one. If they were told they couldn't sell the cars it was because of emission controls and other requrements that drop gas mileage.

Case in point. When the plymoth Arrow was first introduced in the US, it was also sold in Japan. (mitsubishi made it for plymoth and sold it under their own brand in Japan.) Their version got several more miles per gallon and had higher horsepower. The difference? Emission controls required by law here that weren't required there.

Not that that is a bad thing really, but no one in our government is, or was going to tell them their cars get to high of gas mileage so they can't sell them.

 

Uhtrinity

Platinum Member
Dec 21, 2003
2,263
202
106
Originally posted by: Gneisenau
Then energy cost of hybrid car from dust to dust is higher than conventional cars.
see http://www.addisonlee.com/green/dust-to-dust/ for one report. There are others out there.
Some hybrids have higher energy costs dust to dust than SUVs.

I have also seen reports about pollution being higher in hybrids dust to dust than conventional cars also. In that case the problem resides in the batteries. The manufacture of the batteries is a very high pollution generating technologies.

This isn't to say that further advances in manufacturing of hybrids and their batteries wont eventually bring them under that of conventional cars, but as of right now, they may do more enviromental damage than their conventional counterparts.

Then a good analogy would be that each hybrid does as much damage as 500 - 1000 cellphones, or 100 - 250 laptops (due to batteries). And there are a hell of a lot more cellphones and laptops out there (maybe 100,000 to 1,000,000 more?) .....

I agree that the manufacturing process will get better as hybrids or pure EV's become more mainstream.
 

Gneisenau

Senior member
May 30, 2007
264
0
0
Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Originally posted by: Gneisenau
Then energy cost of hybrid car from dust to dust is higher than conventional cars.
see http://www.addisonlee.com/green/dust-to-dust/ for one report. There are others out there.
Some hybrids have higher energy costs dust to dust than SUVs.

I have also seen reports about pollution being higher in hybrids dust to dust than conventional cars also. In that case the problem resides in the batteries. The manufacture of the batteries is a very high pollution generating technologies.

This isn't to say that further advances in manufacturing of hybrids and their batteries wont eventually bring them under that of conventional cars, but as of right now, they may do more enviromental damage than their conventional counterparts.

Then a good analogy would be that each hybrid does as much damage as 500 - 1000 cellphones, or 100 - 250 laptops (due to batteries). And there are a hell of a lot more cellphones and laptops out there (maybe 100,000 to 1,000,000 more?) .....

I agree that the manufacturing process will get better as hybrids or pure EV's become more mainstream.

LOL nothing would please me more than outlawing cellphones. I hate being connected to the office 24 hours a day. :) I hate having a conversation with someone who has to stop in the middle if it to take a call. I hate sitting in a traffic jam becuase some @55hole ahead of me talking on a cell phone just got creamed. :)
I know their here to stay, but I hat them just the same. If fact, if I met mr. Bell today, I'd strangle the guy. :p

 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Deudalus
I found this to be quite interesting and highly ironic to be honest. Turns out we can make internal combustion engines that are far, far, far cleaner than hybrid engines.

The only problems are that the government wont let carmakers sell them and they just don't have that "I'm driving a Hybrid for the environment" catch phrase that Sheryl Crow and her ilk love so much.......

Nothing new here.

Many foriegn cars in the early 80's got 50 mpg.

They were told to bring down the mpg or no longer sell in the U.S.

The 1990 Metro got 45 mpg, and it was a miserable POS that wasn't highway worthy.

1990 Metro

And show me one reputable link that backs up your claim...

The reason the Japanese auto industry did so well was because they built reliable inexpensive cars that got good mileage.

If they could do it then, they could do it now and they aren't. The public won't put up with a POS like the Metro was
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Gneisenau
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Deudalus
I found this to be quite interesting and highly ironic to be honest. Turns out we can make internal combustion engines that are far, far, far cleaner than hybrid engines.

The only problems are that the government wont let carmakers sell them and they just don't have that "I'm driving a Hybrid for the environment" catch phrase that Sheryl Crow and her ilk love so much.......

Nothing new here.

Many foriegn cars in the early 80's got 50 mpg.

They were told to bring down the mpg or no longer sell in the U.S.

You're kidding right? I'm calling BS on this one. If they were told they couldn't sell the cars it was because of emission controls and other requrements that drop gas mileage.

If it got twice the amount of miles per gallon then how would it be worse in pollution than a car with half of the miles per gallon? :confused:

You're support of the Saudi's is cracking again.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Nothing new here.

Many foriegn cars in the early 80's got 50 mpg.

They were told to bring down the mpg or no longer sell in the U.S.

And the tin-foil hats are out! :laugh:

This ranks right up there with a neighbor who swears his friend had a carburetor back 20 years ago that got 50+ mpg in a full size pickup truck. He claims Ford bought the guy out and killed the technology.

But do continue, conspiracy theories are a hoot.
 

Uhtrinity

Platinum Member
Dec 21, 2003
2,263
202
106
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Nothing new here.

Many foriegn cars in the early 80's got 50 mpg.

They were told to bring down the mpg or no longer sell in the U.S.

And the tin-foil hats are out! :laugh:

This ranks right up there with a neighbor who swears his friend had a carburetor back 20 years ago that got 50+ mpg in a full size pickup truck. He claims Ford bought the guy out and killed the technology.

But do continue, conspiracy theories are a hoot.

I do agree it is conspiracy theory, but why can't (or won't) American car makers make cars that get 50+ mpg. My Insight is capable of that easily and even more with the electric assist / regen disabled as the Insight has an extremely efficient ICE. The electric portion simply helps compensate for performance when accelerating, and climbing a grade, autostop at lights, and reclaiming energy when de-accelerating. Add to that it has a 5 star crash rating.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The 1990 Metro got 45 mpg, and it was a miserable POS that wasn't highway worthy.

1990 Metro

And show me one reputable link that backs up your claim...

The reason the Japanese auto industry did so well was because they built reliable inexpensive cars that got good mileage.

If they could do it then, they could do it now and they aren't. The public won't put up with a POS like the Metro was

Hey! quit trying to beat the metro. Most owners loved their metro. Too bad they killed production.

Till 2 years ago I had the 1994 Geo Metro and it was a fine car. It had over 160K miles when I got rid of it and ran like a champ ON THE HIGHWAY. I've even gone long distance (Philly - NYC) on it a few times. Never had any trouble maintaining 70-75 on the highway.

Edit:
And FYI my other vehicles are a fully loaded V8 SUV and a full size car, and at work I sometime drive a full size HD pickup. So in spite of being used to large powerful (gas guzzling) vehicles I enjoyed my tiny manual fuel sipper. Most inexpensive vehicle I have owned. And in some ways the most fun to drive.



 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Add to that it has a 5 star crash rating.

You'd better hope that testing that rating never becomes necessary :laugh:

And I'm serious. The EPA's crash ratings are bogus and everyone knows it.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Nothing new here.

Many foriegn cars in the early 80's got 50 mpg.

They were told to bring down the mpg or no longer sell in the U.S.

And the tin-foil hats are out! :laugh:

This ranks right up there with a neighbor who swears his friend had a carburetor back 20 years ago that got 50+ mpg in a full size pickup truck. He claims Ford bought the guy out and killed the technology.

But do continue, conspiracy theories are a hoot.

My neighbor devised a car that ran on water, he was taken out of his house in the middle of the night by GM executives wearing hoods, I understand he's now in the same detention facility as Manuel Noriega because the Feds were all part of it too...


BTW the Metro's specs: Edmunds

Horsepower: 49 hp
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Nothing new here.

Many foriegn cars in the early 80's got 50 mpg.

They were told to bring down the mpg or no longer sell in the U.S.
Links?
Not so sure of the 80's. but in the early to mid 90's Geo and Honda had cars that would get into the low to mid 50's. Honda did it with using lean burn, like my Insight.
I'm more interested in seeing something supporting the last sentence, that "They were told to bring down the mpg or no longer sell in the U.S." It's certainly news to me.