 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / November 2007Aptera diesel-electric hybrid car gets 300 miles per gallon and will cost $29k.
Learn more http://Muvy.org LOL ! That's not a Car ! Graham > Learn more http://Muvy.org Anything that cuts into oil stocks will be rejected as a hoax just to keep the status quo. You can bet anybody who knocks new things has money to loose it it works. Actually looks pretty slippery. .25KWhr per mile perhaps? > Actually looks pretty slippery. .25KWhr per mile perhaps? In a flat country like Holland maybe ? Graham On Oct 10, 1:55 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Actually looks pretty slippery. .25KWhr per mile perhaps? > > In a flat country like Holland maybe ? > > Graham I did a google for "road horsepower" and the first link was for a Toyota MR2. http://www.mr2.com/MR2TechData.html A test by Car & Driver put it at 14.0 hp @ 50 mph. That would be 14*. 746=10.444 KW, which is what would be needed to cover 50 miles. 10.444/50 = .20888 KW hr/mi. An efficiency of 85% would not be unrealistic and would give .20888/.85 = .246 KWhr/mi. This thing looks like it probably has a lower CD than an MR2. BTW that 14.0 hp was broken down into Friction and tire losses @ 50 mph ..... 5.5 hp Aerodynamic drag @ 50 mph ............. 8.5 hp Bruce >On Oct 10, 1:55 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Bruce I think you missed something here. According to your figures, it will take just over 200 watts to move the car at 50 mph for one mile. That's not the figure given of 14 hp, that's more like 1/4 hp expended to move one mile. You have to expend that power at a constant rate of 14 hp or 10.444 kW. Look at it another way. W=ExI Where W=watt E=voltage I=current (in amps) To make the math easer, assume you have a 100 volt battery. Then solve for current using: I=W/E I=10444watts / 100volts I=104.44amps We have a constant current draw of 104.44 amps required to propel the car at 50 mph. That is the reason why it is really hard to get an electric car to have a reasonable range (200 miles) at a reasonable speed (50 mph). You would be looking at a total power expenditure of over 41.7 kW to drive for 200 miles at 50 mph. That figure assumes no head wind and level ground. Add in real life conditions and you might be looking at power expenditures of around 45 to 50 kW. Also, you'd flat get run over driving around here on the highway at 50 mph. You'd better be traveling at least 60 mph which would boost your totals even more. Even if you had a battery that could deliver that much power, you still have the problem of getting all that power back into the battery. In order to replace 41.7 kW using your 120 vac outlet, you need to draw over 41 amps for 8 hours. That is assuming 100% recharge efficiency. You can draw your own conclusions regarding the practicality electric cars. Jack --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 000783-0, 10/21/2007 Tested on: 10/21/2007 10:09:53 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com >> http://www.mr2.com/MR2TechData.html >> >> A test by Car & Driver put it at 14.0 hp @ 50 mph. That would be 14*. >> 746=10.444 KW, which is what would be needed to cover 50 miles. >> 10.444/50 = .20888 KW hr/mi. An efficiency of 85% would not be >> unrealistic and would give .20888/.85 = .246 KWhr/mi. ... > I think you missed something here. According to your figures, it will > take just over 200 watts to move the car at 50 mph for one mile. No, it takes 10.444 kW to move the car at 50 mph. It takes just over 200 watt-hours to move the car one mile at 50 mph. > To make the math easer, assume you have a 100 volt battery. Then > solve for current using: Why not 300V? 600V? 1000V? Wouldn't higher voltage be easier for the electronics than lower voltage? > We have a constant current draw of 104.44 amps required to propel the > car at 50 mph. That is the reason why it is really hard to get an > electric car to have a reasonable range (200 miles) at a reasonable > speed (50 mph). You would be looking at a total power expenditure of > over 41.7 kW to drive for 200 miles at 50 mph. It's not the amps, it's the wattage. It's all 10kW no matter how you slice it. If this was a 1000V system then it would only be 10.4 amps. 10 Amps doesn't sound like a problem. > Even if you had a battery that could deliver that much power, you > still have the problem of getting all that power back into the > battery. In order to replace 41.7 kW using your 120 vac outlet, you > need to draw over 41 amps for 8 hours. That is assuming 100% recharge > efficiency. Those new lithium batteries seem to be able to give 200+ mile range to electric cars without any problems (except being expensive). I would imagine you would recharge using a 220V appliance outlet like they use for electric dryers, electric ovens and air conditioners. Besides, who drives 200+ miles a day? If you drive only 30 or 40 miles then the battery won't be completely flat and it won't take as much to recharge. Anthony >>> http://www.mr2.com/MR2TechData.html >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >No, it takes 10.444 kW to move the car at 50 mph. >It takes just over 200 watt-hours to move the car one mile at 50 mph. How can it take 10.444 kW to move a car at 50 mph but only 200 w/hr to move a car at 50 mph? Remember that a w/hr is a unit of power for a period of time. A watt is a unit of power without reference to time. >> To make the math easer, assume you have a 100 volt battery. Then >> solve for current using: > >Why not 300V? 600V? 1000V? Wouldn't higher voltage be easier for the >electronics than lower voltage? You could use any battery voltage you wish. I chose 100 volts to make the math easier to follow. The battery voltage would have no effect on the power requirement. >> We have a constant current draw of 104.44 amps required to propel the >> car at 50 mph. That is the reason why it is really hard to get an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >slice it. If this was a 1000V system then it would only be 10.4 amps. >10 Amps doesn't sound like a problem. It IS the amps and the voltage and the current and the wattage. They are all related. Power in watts is voltage time current. Yes, you could use a 1000 volt battery and it would only require a current draw of 10.4 amps. The power would be the same. >> Even if you had a battery that could deliver that much power, you >> still have the problem of getting all that power back into the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Anthony You still have to put the power used back into the battery regardless of what voltage you use to power the charger or what type of battery you use. What about the poor guy who has to travel 1000 miles in his electric car. Does he drive 200 miles then stop for 8 hours while the battery is recharged? Jack --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 000783-0, 10/21/2007 Tested on: 10/22/2007 3:39:29 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com >>>> http://www.mr2.com/MR2TechData.html >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > move a car at 50 mph? Remember that a w/hr is a unit of power for a > period of time. A watt is a unit of power without reference to time. Would you prefer if we said that it takes 10.444 kWh to move a car 50 miles in one hour? How about that it takes 1/50th of that to move the car just 1/50th of that distance in 1/50th of that time? I'll let you do the math. Hint. 1/50th of 50 miles is 1 mile. (I'll let someone else describe w/hr and Whr differences.) :) >> Those new lithium batteries seem to be able to give 200+ mile range >> to electric cars without any problems (except being expensive). I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of what voltage you use to power the charger or what type of battery > you use. The wiring in most houses is limited in amperage. Say your car can only draw 30A from the outlet. If the outlet is 220V then it can get twice the power than it could if it was 120V. A car that would need 8 hours to recharge on 120V would only need 4 hours on 220V. Your complaint seems to be that it would take too long to recharge a car at 120V. I suggest that it wouldn't take too long at 220V. > What about the poor guy who has to travel 1000 miles in his electric > car. Does he drive 200 miles then stop for 8 hours while the battery > is recharged? What about the poor guy who has to travel 4000 miles? What does he do for speeding tickets and sleep? Around these parts, it would take over 18 hours to drive 1000 miles and anyone who has to drive more than a 1000 miles a day has got bigger problems than where to plug in his car. Assuming your car gets some 5 miles/kWh and you get to recharge using a typical 220V 30A outlet. It would only require 6 hours of recharging for every 200 miles of driving (more or less). This sounds reasonable to me. Some folks have been suggesting the use of 'quick charge' outlets that provide higher voltage, current or both. These could recharge the car while eating lunch (or dinner). Anthony >>>>> http://www.mr2.com/MR2TechData.html >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> car. Does he drive 200 miles then stop for 8 hours while the battery >> is recharged? That number should be 500miles per day...at least if the driver wants to stay legel and safe.Roughly what a solo truck driver does in a day. But then that also begs to explain as well ,if electric power is cheaper to operate.And can do the the range across country without delay,with the potential of savings for the driver.Why are we starting out with cars instead of battery powered trains and 18wheelers?Hell the trains in most of the country already have thier 600v computer controled traction motor already installed.Now how many of them everlasting batteries do we for a 6000hp locomotive.They sometime run more than one locomotive in a consist.....but I guess we can multiple that one locomotive number on whatever the consist requires. At the same ,time I remember some trains were striaght electric.You think ,there might be a reason for most to run diesel on a generator,instead of electric off an overhead or batteries. > What about the poor guy who has to travel 4000 miles? What does he > do for speeding tickets and sleep? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Anthony > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:16:05 -0700, Anthony Matonak > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > move a car at 50 mph? Remember that a w/hr is a unit of power for a > period of time. A watt is a unit of power without reference to time. To maintain a speed of 50 mph it takes 10.444 KW (note KW not KWhr). If you travel at 50 mph for one hour you will have gone 50 miles and you will have drawn 10.444 KW for one hour, meaning you used 10.444 KWhr. To only travel one mile would only take 1/50=.02 hrs. If you draw 10.444 KW for .02 hr then you used 10.444*.02=.20888 KWhr or 208.88 watt-hours. > >> To make the math easer, assume you have a 100 volt battery. Then > >> solve for current using: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the math easier to follow. The battery voltage would have no effect > on the power requirement. Your complaint seemed to be about the high current draw. Using a higher voltage reduces the current. And actually it does have an effect on the power requirement. Part of the power requirement is providing for power losses due to resistance heating in the batteries, wiring and motors. Those heat losses are proportional to the square of the current. Go from 100V to 200V and the resistance losses are cut to 1/4 of what they were. That also means you can work the motor harder without over heating it. > >> We have a constant current draw of 104.44 amps required to propel the > >> car at 50 mph. That is the reason why it is really hard to get an [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > car. Does he drive 200 miles then stop for 8 hours while the battery > is recharged? Take his other car? Take the bus? Rent another car? The electric may not be able to do all things, but if it can get the equivelent of 160 mpg or more for the vast majority of your traveling then maybe you can afford to make other arangements for those trips that it isn't suitable for. Another possibility would be to have an engine just big enough to provide the power needed for a steady state cruise at the highest speed you need to go. When going slower the batteries could be charged on the fly so there would be more power availible for acceleration or climbing hills. Something like this http://tinyurl.com/22d3n6 should let you cruise at 70 mph while using .9 gal/hr. That works out to 77 mpg. Bruce > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:09:56 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > to move one mile. You have to expend that power at a constant rate of > 14 hp or 10.444 kW. Look at it another way. Read it again. That is 200 watt hours. Yes, a 1/4 hp motor should be able to move the car 1 mile in an hour. And a 1 hp motor could move it 4 miles in an hour. And a 2 hp motor could move it 8 miles in an hour. And a 14 hp motor could move it 50 miles in an hour. A watt is energy per unit of time, same as hp. A watt hour is a unit of energy, as would be a hp hour. Spread that energy out over a long period of time and the power is low, but the amount of work that can be done is the same. > W=ExI > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > better be traveling at least 60 mph which would boost your totals even > more. The claim made was 120 miles, not 200, and the car should use less than the 14 hp to go 50 mph. That was the power required to keep a Toyota MR2 going 50 mph. Even at 14 hp it would only take 10.444*2.4=25 KW hrs to go 120 miles. It would not be unrealistic to expect this smaller car with better arodynamics to do 50 mph using 10 hp, which would mean about 18 KW hrs to do 120 miles. > Even if you had a battery that could deliver that much power, you > still have the problem of getting all that power back into the > battery. In order to replace 41.7 kW using your 120 vac outlet, you > need to draw over 41 amps for 8 hours. That is assuming 100% recharge > efficiency. 120 volts * 20 amps is 2400 watts. 18 KW hrs / 2400 watts = 7.5 hrs. They did say to plug it in at night, and that it would be recharged in a few hours. They were probably stretching things a bit, but not all that much. Bruce > You can draw your own conclusions regarding the practicality electric > cars. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - Show quoted text - 18KWhrs at $.12 would cost me about $2.16 in Florida... Thats about what .75 gal costs this week... 120 miles on .75 gal would be 160 mpg equivalent.... sounds hi to me... 100mpg equiv I might believe.... > 18KWhrs at $.12 would cost me about $2.16 in Florida... Thats about > what .75 gal costs this week... 120 miles on .75 gal would be 160 mpg > equivalent.... sounds hi to me... 100mpg equiv I might believe.... Try getting off peak power. Plug it in and let it charge while you sleep for about half the cost of daytime power. What makes you think the $/mi should be the same as for gasoline? >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:09:56 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >time and the power is low, but the amount of work that can be done is >the same. So 4 hp would move the car 16 miles in an hour (16 mph). A 8 hp motor would move the car 32 miles. A 16 hp motor would move the car 64 miles. And it would take a 32 hp motor to move the car 128 mph. Holly smokes, my car should be able to travel at well over 400 mph using its 120 hp motor. Do you see something wrong with this progression? A watt is a unit of power without regard to time. A wHr is a unit of work. 10 watts isn't the same as 100 watts but 10 watts applied to a device for 10 hours will do the same amount of work as 100 watts applied for 1 hour. The same is true of horsepower, it's a measurement of power not work. A hpHr is a measurement of work. So, if it takes 14 hp to move a car at 50 mph without regard to time. It will take 14 hp to move that car at 50 mph for one minute or one hour. The only difference is the amount of work done, not the amount of power needed. So, his figure of 200 watts to move a car at 50 mph is wrong. Jack --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 000783-0, 10/21/2007 Tested on: 10/22/2007 4:17:45 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:29:47 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > smokes, my car should be able to travel at well over 400 mph using its > 120 hp motor. Do you see something wrong with this progression? Sure, I made it linear rather than exponential to keep things simple. The further you get from the 50 mph starting point the further off you will be. The point was that 1/4 hp would move the car 1 mile in an hour. That's traveling 1mph for an hour. > A watt is a unit of power without regard to time. A wHr is a unit of > work. 10 watts isn't the same as 100 watts but 10 watts applied to a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So, his figure of 200 watts to move a car at 50 mph is wrong. It was 200 watt-hours to move the car one mile in 1/50 hrs. If you want to go 50 miles in an hour it will take 50 times that. > Jack > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:29:47 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> >> >> >http://www.mr2.com/MR2TechData.html I give up. You folks seem to be unable to understand that there is a difference between power and work. Jack --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 000783-1, 10/22/2007 Tested on: 10/23/2007 1:16:30 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com > On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:14:58 -0700, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Jack Sorry but you're the one that seems to have things mixed up. If you apply a force over a distance you have work. Say you push with a force of 11 pounds for a distance of 50 feet , you have done 550 foot pounds of work. Time doesn't enter into it. It is 550 foot pounds of work whether you do it in ten seconds or ten minutes. Power is how much work is done in a given time. 550 foot pounds per second is one horsepower. So if we pushed the object above the 50 feet in one second it would have been 1 hp. But it took 10 times that long so we were producing .1 hp. Watts are power. 1 hp = 746 watts. If we specify a power output for a specific period of time the result is an answer in work. Look at the units. Power is foot pounds divided time, and you are multiplying by time. The times cancel out leaving you with foot pounds. The same thing applies to watts. A watt is current times voltage. The current is flow per unit of time. So when you specify a time period for those watts you multiply by that time and get the work done during that time. In the original example we knew it took 10,000 watts to maintain a speed of 50 mph. We know that at that speed it takes .02 hours to cover 1 mile. Multiply the power (10,000 watts) by the time (.02 hours) and you get an answer in units of work (watt hours). If we had multiplied the power in horsepower by the time we would have gotten an answer in horsepower hours which can be converted into foot pounds. The 200 watt hours seems like a small number compared to 10 KW, but it is the work done in a short period of time (.02 hours). If you do the same thing 50 times it will take 200*50=10,000 watt hours over a period of 1 hour. Or go at it the other way around. Divide 200 watt hours by .02 hours. The time units cancel out leaving 10,000 watts. Starting to make sense? Bruce >Actually looks pretty slippery. .25KWhr per mile perhaps? EV1A did wayyw better than that.. (~179Wh/mile) http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/ev1_eva.pdf I suspect this design will be significantly more efficient. I.E. 3 instead of 4 wheels, reduced weight, my bet is that it consumes less than 100 Wh per mile. > >Actually looks pretty slippery. .25KWhr per mile perhaps? > > EV1A did wayyw better than that.. (~179Wh/mile) > > http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/ev1_eva.pdf Talking of which, I saw a Honda Insight in REAL LIFE today ! It parked behind where I was as I went to the bank. I didn't know any had ever been sold in the UK. Does anyone know what that does in terms of Wh/mile or whatever ? Graham > >Actually looks pretty slippery. .25KWhr per mile perhaps? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I.E. 3 instead of 4 wheels, reduced weight, my bet is that it > consumes less than 100 Wh per mile. And on a 1 in 3 gradient uphill ? Do you have to get out to push ? Graham 300 mpg that looks like the dandy lion car from ABCs Pushing Daisies ? no way. Id rather have half of the mpg but looks like a *real* car. > 300 mpg that looks like the dandy lion car from ABCs Pushing Daisies ? > no way. Id rather have half of the mpg but looks like a *real* car. The day that EV manufacturers design an EV that looks like and performs like a real car (and sells for a price that competes with a real car) is the day that they'll start doing serious business. Until then we can all laugh loudly at their 'clown cars'. Graham On 11 Oct, 19:47, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 300 mpg that looks like the dandy lion car from ABCs Pushing Daisies ? > > no way. Id rather have half of the mpg but looks like a *real* car. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Graham Well this one will do up to 120 km/hour, is capable of doing 3,000 km without refuelling and should be able to bring your fried Plaice dinner, with pancake dessert back from the supermarket. http://www.avivagroup.com.au/files/sites/default/minisite/solarcar/thecar/techin fo.html Waiving the right to remain silent, xnichols@hotmail.com said: > On 11 Oct, 19:47, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > http://www.avivagroup.com.au/files/sites/default/minisite/solarcar/thecar > /techinfo.html Another clown car which would be flipped over like a pancake by a 5mph cross wind...  SignatureLarry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail "A lack of common sense is now considered a disability, with all the privileges that this entails." On Oct 17, 4:03 pm, Larry in AZ <usen...@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote: > Waiving the right to remain silent, xnich...@hotmail.com said: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > "A lack of common sense is now considered a disability, > with all the privileges that this entails." One of my favorite concept car that is not so clown looking. " The Eco Speedster, with its surprisingly diminutive 1.3-liter ECOTECH CDTI, tops out at 155 mph and clocked an average fuel economy of 113 mpg over a 24-hour road test. A combination of low weight (660 kg/1,445 lbs), minimal drag, mid-engine design, and a 5-speed automatic transmission let the Eco Speedster rip and sip at the same time. " The Eco Speedster appeared at the Paris Auto Show in 2002 and has been featured in the Discovery Channel's FutureCar series http://youtube.com/watch?v=mvKYUM5NkWk > > Waiving the right to remain silent, xnich...@hotmail.com said: > > >> > 300 mpg that looks like the dandy lion car from ABCs Pushing Daisies [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > featured in the Discovery Channel's FutureCar series > http://youtube.com/watch?v=mvKYUM5NkWk Funky but still not a family car. Graham > >Actually looks pretty slippery. .25KWhr per mile perhaps? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I.E. 3 instead of 4 wheels, reduced weight, my bet is that it > consumes less than 100 Wh per mile. Aptera has also eliminated one of the remaining aerodynamic obstacles found on conventional cars -- the side-view mirrors. They have replaced them with a camera and a dashboard monitor. The lack of side- view mirrors probably wouldn't be street-legal on a car in the United States. However, in the United States, a three-wheeled vehicle is, legally speaking, not a car -- it is a motorcycle. +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ | Ladasky Home Solar, Inc.: blowing sunshine up your | | power grid since March 24, 2005. Fiat lux! | +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ | Uptime Downtime kWh generated kWh consumed | | 939.4 days 14 hours 17188 17532 | +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ > > >Actually looks pretty slippery. .25KWhr per mile perhaps? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > States. However, in the United States, a three-wheeled vehicle is, > legally speaking, not a car -- it is a motorcycle. Mirrors are covered by state laws. I know that in my state (NH) an inside mirror alone will get you through inspection. Outside mirrors are required for vehicles where an inside rear view is blocked. I haven't checked but I suspect that the camera set-up would be ok without side mirrors in NH. Bruce > Learn more http://Muvy.org If true it won't be allowed in the US. They will find or invent a problem with it. On Oct 21, 6:46 pm, Broderick Crawford <bcrawford2...@roadrunner.com> wrote: > > Learn morehttp://Muvy.org > > If true it won't be allowed in the US. They will find or invent a > problem with it. That's very true, as not even the VW LUPO that could actually obtain a sustained 100 empg under ideal conditions never got in, and I'm not certain the VW Fox was any better off, but at least the Aptera diesel- electric that's suggesting 300 empg at 20 mph (down-wind) kind of 2- person clown-car option/scam, whereas in some of our grid-lock city environments (like NYC) you can't hardly average but 10 mph, so it could work as is, especially if it were a one cylinder 0.1 liter diesel engine that's somehow micro turbocharged and running one heck of a flywheel/alternator at 7,200 rpm, if not faster. Aptera diesel-electric hybrid; following link comes with lots of absolutely stupid graphics, spyware and butt loads of those crapolla infomercial advertisings http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/03/the_future_is_h.php By the time it meets crash safety and many other essential standards, it will not get much better than half of their projected empg, and there's no such thing as HVAC. - Brad Guth - > Learn morehttp://Muvy.org 200 empg might get our attention, and 100 empg would be entirely believable of what a 4 seat diesel/electric hybrid shouldn't have any problems accomplishing while cruising along at 60+ mph with a one liter turbocharged diesel+electric hybrid, having an ideal city driving capability of 200 empg being somewhat iffy, especially for under $30k. A true multi-fuel hybrid could accomplish a typical 6-passenger SUV at 200 empg city and easily 100 empg sustained at 60+ mph, all at the absolute minimum of CO2 and zilch/zero NOx. (we accomplish this nifty feat by simply replacing our polluted atmosphere of mostly N2 with instead injecting h2o2) - Brad Guth - |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.