A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hybrid Lovers Read This and Lament



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old November 26th 05, 04:25 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hybrid Lovers Read This and Lament

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Erik Meltzer wrote:

> Bill Putney wrote:
>> Heh heh! I don't know if the big diesel manufacturers still do this,
>> but when I was a kid, I remember being told (probably by my dad) that
>> the Caterpillar scraper engines used small gasoline engines (with their
>> own electric starter of course) to start the main engine.

>
> A combustion engine would be a poor choice for a starter,


....nevertheless, a great deal of heavy equipment was equipped exactly so.

> The starter for a passenger car engine usually delivers around
> 1 bhp


Even the lightest-duty version of the starter Chrysler Corp. used on most
of their products from 1962 through 1988 was rated 1.5 bhp. The
heaviest-duty version was rated 1.8. The Nippondenso and Bosch PMPGR
starters used on a great many different makes and models since 1989 are
rated at between 1.1kW and 1.4kW (roughly 1.5 to 1.9 hp).


Ads
  #72  
Old November 26th 05, 05:25 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hybrid Lovers Read This and Lament

Hi!

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Erik Meltzer wrote:
> > A combustion engine would be a poor choice for a starter,

>
> ...nevertheless, a great deal of heavy equipment was equipped exactly so.


How did they couple starter and engine then? Clutch?
Hydraulics?

> > The starter for a passenger car engine usually delivers around
> > 1 bhp

>
> Even the lightest-duty version of the starter Chrysler Corp. used on most
> of their products from 1962 through 1988 was rated 1.5 bhp. The
> heaviest-duty version was rated 1.8. The Nippondenso and Bosch PMPGR
> starters used on a great many different makes and models since 1989 are
> rated at between 1.1kW and 1.4kW (roughly 1.5 to 1.9 hp).


Sorry, European viewpoint. I think the VW Bug has a 0.8 hp
starter, for instance. Doesn't make much of a difference
with regard to the topic discussed, though. Thanks for the
additional data nevertheless.

Yours,
Erik.
--
Example warning label for:
grand piano - "Dangerous if swallowed"
Fisherman's Friend cough drops - "Not a substitute for human companionship"
-- R J Carpenter in r.a.m.v.w.
  #73  
Old November 26th 05, 03:57 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hybrid Lovers Read This and Lament

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Erik Meltzer wrote:

>>> A combustion engine would be a poor choice for a starter,


>> ...nevertheless, a great deal of heavy equipment was equipped exactly so.


> How did they couple starter and engine then? Clutch? Hydraulics?


With a pedal-operated mechanical linkage. Think of your standard starter
engagement fork and lever, only on a big scale and thrown not by a
solenoid but by the equipment operator's foot.

  #74  
Old November 27th 05, 01:09 AM posted to alt.autos.ford,alt.autos.gm,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.makers.chrysler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hybrid Lovers Read This and Lament

Grayfox wrote:

> ...You two could drive old people to fornicate!


That seems kind of weird, but if our discussion helped you fire up the
ol' "number one spark plug" again, then glad we could help. The
centerfolds aren't working for you anymore?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
  #75  
Old November 27th 05, 12:48 PM posted to alt.autos.ford,alt.autos.gm,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.makers.chrysler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hybrid Lovers Read This and Lament


"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Ken Weitzel wrote:
>
> > If one is foolish enough to put 4 AA nimh's in their pocket while
> > bike riding with their grand daughter, they can burn their leg
> > terribly painfully, leaving a bad scar
> >
> > Don't ask me how I know that, eh?

>
> To paraphrase Mae West: "Is that a pair of C-cells in your pocket or are
> you just happy to see me?"
>


She electrified him.

Ted


  #76  
Old November 28th 05, 05:11 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hybrid Lovers Read This and Lament

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote:


>Even the lightest-duty version of the starter Chrysler Corp. used on most
>of their products from 1962 through 1988 was rated 1.5 bhp. The
>heaviest-duty version was rated 1.8. The Nippondenso and Bosch PMPGR
>starters used on a great many different makes and models since 1989 are
>rated at between 1.1kW and 1.4kW (roughly 1.5 to 1.9 hp).
>

Do you know if they're using permanent magnet motors now, or do
present-day starters still use electromagnetic stators?
--
Email reply: please remove one letter from each side of "@"
Spammers are Scammers. Exterminate them.
  #77  
Old November 29th 05, 08:49 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hybrid Lovers Read This and Lament

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005, Doug Warner wrote:

>> Even the lightest-duty version of the starter Chrysler Corp. used on
>> most of their products from 1962 through 1988 was rated 1.5 bhp. The
>> heaviest-duty version was rated 1.8. The Nippondenso and Bosch PMPGR
>> starters used on a great many different makes and models since 1989 are
>> rated at between 1.1kW and 1.4kW (roughly 1.5 to 1.9 hp).
>>

> Do you know if they're using permanent magnet motors now, or do
> present-day starters still use electromagnetic stators?


The PM in PMPGR means "Permanent Magnet". Chrysler, like just about
everyone else, uses PMPGR and PMOSGR starters on just about everything
they build.

DS
  #78  
Old December 1st 05, 02:25 AM posted to alt.autos.ford,alt.autos.gm,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.makers.chrysler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hybrid Lovers Read This and Lament

In article omain>,
Whoever > wrote:

> A group of researchers built an interesting mod to a Prius (or some other
> hybrid). They added more batteries - but not enough for a long range --
> and a charger.
>
> The result was a vehicle that could cope with a short commute using energy
> from the overnight charge, while long distances could also be achieved
> through the gas engine. The overall fuel economy (and vehicle cost) was
> significantly greater than that of the original hybrid, while the range
> was grater than that of a 100% battery vehicle.


Good idea.
Including the cost of electricity to charge it?
  #79  
Old December 12th 05, 04:59 AM posted to alt.autos.ford,alt.autos.gm,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.makers.chrysler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hybrid Lovers Read This and Lament

"Mike Hunter" > wrote in
:

> What will you use for a fulcrum?
>
> mike
>


the moon of course
  #80  
Old December 12th 05, 09:48 AM posted to alt.autos.ford,alt.autos.gm,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.makers.chrysler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hybrid Lovers Read This and Lament

The hybrids are here to stay

Those who have not started making hybrids are out in the cold

Fuel cells in combination with something else is the future

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.