Chrysler is wise to avoid the hybrids

<<Smart thinking is at work if Chrysler avoids jumping on the bandwagon
to
develop hybrids. Its a short-term fad that can't last. >>

Sure it can, just depends on a lot of unknowns - how long gas will stay
high, will it go much higher than this, what developments are made that
make the hybrid mechanics' reliability and cost closer to small gas
engines, if they can develop new battery technolgies to make them last
much longer or be restorable without having to totally remove and
replace them, if they start coming out with really high-performance
speedsters that still get Tercel mileage...lots of things. Just
because Chrysler doesn't have it's own Prius doesn't mean they don't
have it high on their agenda. I don't think hybrids can be chalked up
as a fad just yet...Frenchy

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
| Smart thinking is at work if Chrysler avoids jumping on the bandwagon to
| develop hybrids. Its a short-term fad that can't last.
|


The other thing is, there are autos getting damn near the MPG as a hybrid,
all the hybrids tout exceptional gas mileage but, as many owners have found
they get dramatically less. Yes I agree unless something dramatically
changes with the hybrids they will go the way of Mother Earth News. The
proof is in the ownership a friend has a Toyota Corolla hybrid paid several
thousands of $$ more to own a car that touts to be green and yet only gets a
few more MPG as her previous Corolla. Go figure.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...dmileage_x.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in620265.shtml
--
HarryS My 2¢

At this time I would not even think of a hybrid. I like large roomy luxury
cars. I don't want to drive something that costs as much as a comfortable
car but feels like plywood. The money you save on gas is used to pay for
the higher initial cost and the repairs; What would that cost considering
there is no used parts around? Overall you end up with a bad car for the
same price.



"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> Smart thinking is at work if Chrysler avoids jumping on the bandwagon to
> develop hybrids. Its a short-term fad that can't last.
>
> Do the math. Tax credits have a lot to do with it. If hybrids had to
> stand on their own two feet and not depend upon your (taxpayer) voluntary
> contributions to this subsidized program, it would already have fallen
> flat. Even with the tax credits is a bad deal. It will take you seven to
> ten years to recover the higher initial cost, if repair costs after
> warranty expiration don't eat up the savings in consumption. After that
> seven to ten year period of time, there is no way you are going to escape
> having to replace the sealed NiHydride battery pack. That will cost
> several thousand dollars, putting you back at square one. The net savings
> over the long run will be nil.
>
> I haven't driven a hybrid yet, but reports say its herky-jerky when the
> gas
> engine kicks in and takes over from the electric drive motor. At highway
> speeds, I would anticipate LOWER mpg due to having to drag extra weight.
>
> The extra complication has been noted by General Motors. Extra
> complication to me means more components to fail and service. Service is
> highly specialized and is likely to be much more expensive than pure gas
> or
> diesel, which are already very expensive to maintain.
>
> Of all the parts in the system, the battery remains on my suspect list; we
> all know batteries deteriorate over time and use and are definitely not
> zero maintenance items over 7 to 10 year period of time. Manufacturers
> are
> saying the battery pack is good for 100,000 miles, but this is misleading.
> If the test conditions are largely high speed test track running, then the
> motor and battery get little workout coupled with the fact that 100,000
> miles can be racked up in a month or less of continuous test driving. If
> the test conditions are mixed high and low speeds, the 100,000 miles can
> be
> logged in two months. In the real world, a heavy usage driver might do
> 100,000 miles in a year (highway patrol) or three years (salesman). But
> if
> you are a 12,000 mile a year driver, it will take 8 or 9 years to get
> there. Do you really believe the multi-thousand dollar battery pack will
> last that long or be fully functional at the end of that time. It is
> conceivable that even with a degraded battery pack, car engineers have
> designed the vehicle to rely more and and more upon the gas engine and
> less
> and less on the electrics. Perhaps you start off with a hybrid and end up
> with conventional powered car with a "check engine light" glaring at you
> interminally.
>
> That is not to say that some features of a hybrid might not be useful to
> improve upon conventional diesel power. Some hybrids have improved
> streamlining, reduced weight, and low friction tires. All this would go a
> long way towards higher performance with lower fuel consumption, which is
> the goal, along with reduced emissions. It seems to me this is what the
> public will gravitate towards, not hybrids.
>

Last night I rode in a friend's new Prius. Admittedly it was a short city
journey but it was quite roomy (by European standards) and certainly did not
feel like plywood.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Steve" > wrote in message
. ..
> At this time I would not even think of a hybrid. I like large roomy
> luxury cars. I don't want to drive something that costs as much as a
> comfortable car but feels like plywood.
[...]

Your right that was an over exaggeration. However I still do think they
have a cheap feel and look to them.

"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
...
> Last night I rode in a friend's new Prius. Admittedly it was a short city
> journey but it was quite roomy (by European standards) and certainly did
> not feel like plywood.
>
> DAS
>
> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
> ---
>
> "Steve" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> At this time I would not even think of a hybrid. I like large roomy
>> luxury cars. I don't want to drive something that costs as much as a
>> comfortable car but feels like plywood.
> [...]
>
>

I have been offered another, better look during the day. I also want to see
under the bonnet (hood) and at the battery.

We were going out to dinner so it wasn't a good moment.

Watching the fuel consumption on the trip computer (with fancy coloured
graphics) was fascinating. During the trip (through Central London) it
fluctuated wildly (of course) from "99 mpg", i.e. battery power to something
far worse when running on petrol.

My friend thought they averaged maybe 55 mpg (Imperial) on a trip to the
country, which is about 90 min to 2 h, covering mixed driving including fast
roads.

It did make me question the economics, as somebody else has already pointed
out here. You could probably achieve something not far off with a regular
diesel (turbodiesel) engine carrying less weight and maybe costing less.
Even more interesting would be a 'whole life' environmental impact
comparison.

By that I mean the total energy cost and pollution impact of construction
and running for, say, three years, (plus ultimate disposal/recycling,
batteries and all), as well as the actual dollar cost of the car.

Modern diesel engines produce very little pollution (particulates included).

Most impressive is something that is always mentioned by people who see
these things for the first time: the total silence when it moves off. In
Britain may of us know about it as we have electrically-driven milk delivery
vehicles, but it is still impressive to see this in a car.

The reason my friend chose this specific car is to avoid the London mayor's
congestion charge. A number of vehicle classes are exempt (e.g. taxicabs,
motor cycles) for obvious reasons. I think even the mini DC Smart car is
treated specially, but that is also understandable. But the hybrids make no
contribution to reduced congestion. (Maybe the argument is less pollution
but that's what I would like to see proven.)

(In my opinion London's congestion charge is just a way for the rather
controversial mayor to raise money since he has very limited fund-raising
powers and the hybrid exemption is very strong evidence. The background to
my opinion needs another forum and several glasses of wine...)

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Steve" > wrote in message
. ..
> Your right that was an over exaggeration. However I still do think they
> have a cheap feel and look to them.
[...]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Your right that was an over exaggeration. However I still do think they
>have a cheap feel and look to them.

That's what happens when you try to get the car to be as light as possible.
-------------
Alex

I can't believe it, a post of yours I actually agree with. Has your name
been forged? Anybody know the actual subsidies placed on hybrid cars? I
thought it was state specific and not federal? Diesel is a good alternative
if the refineries could lower the sulphur content enough. of the fuel, but
then additives would have to be developed to lubricate the pump.
"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> Smart thinking is at work if Chrysler avoids jumping on the bandwagon to
> develop hybrids. Its a short-term fad that can't last.
>
> Do the math. Tax credits have a lot to do with it. If hybrids had to
> stand on their own two feet and not depend upon your (taxpayer) voluntary
> contributions to this subsidized program, it would already have fallen
> flat. Even with the tax credits is a bad deal. It will take you seven to
> ten years to recover the higher initial cost, if repair costs after
> warranty expiration don't eat up the savings in consumption. After that
> seven to ten year period of time, there is no way you are going to escape
> having to replace the sealed NiHydride battery pack. That will cost
> several thousand dollars, putting you back at square one. The net savings
> over the long run will be nil.
>
> I haven't driven a hybrid yet, but reports say its herky-jerky when the
> gas
> engine kicks in and takes over from the electric drive motor. At highway
> speeds, I would anticipate LOWER mpg due to having to drag extra weight.
>
> The extra complication has been noted by General Motors. Extra
> complication to me means more components to fail and service. Service is
> highly specialized and is likely to be much more expensive than pure gas
> or
> diesel, which are already very expensive to maintain.
>
> Of all the parts in the system, the battery remains on my suspect list; we
> all know batteries deteriorate over time and use and are definitely not
> zero maintenance items over 7 to 10 year period of time. Manufacturers
> are
> saying the battery pack is good for 100,000 miles, but this is misleading.
> If the test conditions are largely high speed test track running, then the
> motor and battery get little workout coupled with the fact that 100,000
> miles can be racked up in a month or less of continuous test driving. If
> the test conditions are mixed high and low speeds, the 100,000 miles can
> be
> logged in two months. In the real world, a heavy usage driver might do
> 100,000 miles in a year (highway patrol) or three years (salesman). But
> if
> you are a 12,000 mile a year driver, it will take 8 or 9 years to get
> there. Do you really believe the multi-thousand dollar battery pack will
> last that long or be fully functional at the end of that time. It is
> conceivable that even with a degraded battery pack, car engineers have
> designed the vehicle to rely more and and more upon the gas engine and
> less
> and less on the electrics. Perhaps you start off with a hybrid and end up
> with conventional powered car with a "check engine light" glaring at you
> interminally.
>
> That is not to say that some features of a hybrid might not be useful to
> improve upon conventional diesel power. Some hybrids have improved
> streamlining, reduced weight, and low friction tires. All this would go a
> long way towards higher performance with lower fuel consumption, which is
> the goal, along with reduced emissions. It seems to me this is what the
> public will gravitate towards, not hybrids.
>

"David Cole" > wrote in message
news:QUkse.65094$on1.63171@clgrps13...
> I can't believe it, a post of yours I actually agree with. Has your name
> been forged? Anybody know the actual subsidies placed on hybrid cars? I
> thought it was state specific and not federal? Diesel is a good
alternative
> if the refineries could lower the sulphur content enough. of the fuel, but
> then additives would have to be developed to lubricate the pump.

Hybrids are pointless if you do mainly highway driving. But they can save
quite a bit if all your doing is city driving. Consider in places like LA
where
you get on the highway and spend 2 hours stop and go traffic and you can see
where the drive to go with hybrids comes from.

While battery packs don't last forever, the battery is warrantied at 100,000
miles,
if they all fail a year after the warranty expires that will kill the hybrid
sales of that automaker.
Toyota already took flack on battery problems, they issued a recall for the
early model
batteries.

One thing that will kill batteries is this quote from the owners manual:

"If you do not use the vehicle for a long time (2 weeks or more), the hybrid
vehicle battery
and auxiliary battery will discharge and their condition is liable to
decline. Therefore, in order
to make up for discharging, charge them once in every two weeks for about 30
minutes by
starting the hybrid system with all electrical components turned off."

Toyota will not replace batteries under warranty that have been left
discharged for long
periods of time.

Actually, what I think will happen with a lot of these Priuses is once they
age and
are discarded by their original owners, they will go straight into fully
electric cars.
There's already a company doing it:

http://www.edrivesystems.com/

and instructions for how to do it are on the Internet he

http://www.calcars.org/priusplus.html

I frankly an looking forward to the day that I can buy a 15-year-old Prius
with
a shot motor and a shot battery for a few hundred bucks, I know what I'll be
doing with it. Full electric! With the commuting driving that I do today,
I could
easily go full electric on a commuter car. And I already have the garage
wired for
50 amp 220 volt service...

Ted


> "Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Smart thinking is at work if Chrysler avoids jumping on the bandwagon to
> > develop hybrids. Its a short-term fad that can't last.
> >
> > Do the math. Tax credits have a lot to do with it. If hybrids had to
> > stand on their own two feet and not depend upon your (taxpayer)
voluntary
> > contributions to this subsidized program, it would already have fallen
> > flat. Even with the tax credits is a bad deal. It will take you seven
to
> > ten years to recover the higher initial cost, if repair costs after
> > warranty expiration don't eat up the savings in consumption. After
that
> > seven to ten year period of time, there is no way you are going to
escape
> > having to replace the sealed NiHydride battery pack. That will cost
> > several thousand dollars, putting you back at square one. The net
savings
> > over the long run will be nil.
> >
> > I haven't driven a hybrid yet, but reports say its herky-jerky when the
> > gas
> > engine kicks in and takes over from the electric drive motor. At
highway
> > speeds, I would anticipate LOWER mpg due to having to drag extra weight.
> >
> > The extra complication has been noted by General Motors. Extra
> > complication to me means more components to fail and service. Service
is
> > highly specialized and is likely to be much more expensive than pure gas
> > or
> > diesel, which are already very expensive to maintain.
> >
> > Of all the parts in the system, the battery remains on my suspect list;
we
> > all know batteries deteriorate over time and use and are definitely not
> > zero maintenance items over 7 to 10 year period of time. Manufacturers
> > are
> > saying the battery pack is good for 100,000 miles, but this is
misleading.
> > If the test conditions are largely high speed test track running, then
the
> > motor and battery get little workout coupled with the fact that 100,000
> > miles can be racked up in a month or less of continuous test driving.
If
> > the test conditions are mixed high and low speeds, the 100,000 miles can
> > be
> > logged in two months. In the real world, a heavy usage driver might do
> > 100,000 miles in a year (highway patrol) or three years (salesman). But
> > if
> > you are a 12,000 mile a year driver, it will take 8 or 9 years to get
> > there. Do you really believe the multi-thousand dollar battery pack
will
> > last that long or be fully functional at the end of that time. It is
> > conceivable that even with a degraded battery pack, car engineers have
> > designed the vehicle to rely more and and more upon the gas engine and
> > less
> > and less on the electrics. Perhaps you start off with a hybrid and end
up
> > with conventional powered car with a "check engine light" glaring at you
> > interminally.
> >
> > That is not to say that some features of a hybrid might not be useful to
> > improve upon conventional diesel power. Some hybrids have improved
> > streamlining, reduced weight, and low friction tires. All this would go
a
> > long way towards higher performance with lower fuel consumption, which
is
> > the goal, along with reduced emissions. It seems to me this is what the
> > public will gravitate towards, not hybrids.
> >
>
>

The batteries, when you have to pay market price for them, will be the
deal breaker.

The cheapest battery that is halfway suitable IMO is a NiCd built from
unairworthy turbine aircraft starting batteries. All aircraft mechanic
schools have large numbers of these well-cased, separate cell assembled
batteries because they are subject to somewhat ridiculous rules and are
hazardous waste when scrapped. The key is to get aircraft shops to sell
them to you for $1 when they are still very marginally airworthy, or to
agree to let you have them for educational purposes with the
understanding you will pay to recycle them when they die. I realize
NiCd is less than the most desirable chemistry but the price can be
right.

Rather than a Prius, I would consider a full sized platform such as a
Chrysler New Yorker or Imperial of early '60s vintage, a commercial
chassis Cadillac, or even a RR Shadow or Camargue (they can come up
cheaply if mechanicals are bad enough!). I would fit a DC motor/axle
unit at the rear, possibly a transverse manual minivan or Cadillac
manual transaxle, and a small genset in the front. Commercial
stationary gensets are out of the question but a Subaru engine mated to
a large bus alternator , or a Honda Gold Wing likewise, might do. More
exotic alternatives are the small turbine APUs for helo and bizjet use
or the Coventry Climax diesel APU used in Brit tanks.

Such a vehicle could carry a really good payload of the surplus
batteries.