Bill Putney > writes:
>
> It's been suggested more than once that you could achieve what hybrids
> claim to do if you just take their under-powered efficiency-optimized
> IC engines, and eliminated all the weight and complexity of the
> batteries and controls systems that you could at least match if not
> exceed the fuel efficiency of the factory hybrid configuration. I
> think someone posted that it's actually been tried and proven. But it
> wouldn't have the same "feel-good" factor. If this is true, what a
> hoax.

Except that (in the case of the Toyota system) the complexity of the
hybrid system is at least partially offset by the incredible
simplification of the transmission. No torque convertor, and only one
planetary gearset gives you what amounts to a CVT (wow. I've come to
hate my daughter's so-reliable-you-can't-kill-it but
god-what-a-pain-to-work-on Toyota truck, but their hybrid scheme is
just kewl).

Also, you need to not just match the fuel efficiency of the
underpowered engine (not hard -- I'll bet if I put a Briggs&Stratton
in my Newport I'd get amazing gas mileage at the price of never
hitting 20mph without a hill), you need to match the acceleration of the
engine+motor at the same time, for a vehicle of the same weight and
aerodynamics.

Note, incidentally, that while the batteries and motors cost weight
(how much? anybody know? certainly nothing like the batteries in an
electric vehicle) the control systems don't.