Recently in Hybrids Category

Launch is the right word.

Edmunds.com:

The current system of measuring a vehicle's efficiency by mpg creates an inaccurate perception about fuel consumption. Because as the mpg rating of a vehicle rises, it appears that it does so proportionately. What this means is if you were to trade in a car getting 12.5 mpg for one getting 25 mpg, it would obviously deliver fuel economy that was twice as good. But if you later traded that car getting 25 mpg for one getting 50 mpg, that exchange would not save you twice as much.

Here's why: Imagine three cars lined up side by side. They all drive 100 miles. Since each car has a different fuel economy rating, they each burn different amounts of gas to travel that same distance.

12.5 mpg = 8 gallons per 100 miles
25 mpg = 4 gallons per 100 miles
50 mpg = 2 gallons per 100 miles

Now look at how much gas is saved in each case. Over a 100-mile drive, the 25-mpg car saves 4 gallons over the 12.5-mpg car. But over the same distance, the 50-mpg car saves only 2 gallons over the 25-mpg car. Taken to the extreme, if there was such a thing as a commercially available 100-mpg car, it would only save 1 gallon of gas over the 50-mpg car.

What Does This Mean to You?
Once you understand the concept, it reveals two key points:

• Trading in a gas guzzler for a midsize sedan provides substantial savings.
• Trading in a midsize sedan for a high-mileage hybrid would hardly be worth the expense in fuel (especially when the taxes and related fees are considered).

The new system also reveals three related concepts that are largely unrecognized:

• Fuel-economy improvements from 12-20 mpg are significant.
• Once vehicles get over 25 mpg, the gains are much less dramatic.
• While extremely high-mileage hybrids provide eco bragging rights, they don't save much more gas than midsize sedans.

Here's a calculator if you're interested.

UPDATE: Honda trades mileage for "utility, affordability" and "fun" in the new Insight. Well sure. My '06 CIVIC still gets almost 38 on the highway and low 30's in town. Got it for about seven thousand less than a hybrid version, and it's a blast to drive. Environmentally-unfriendly batteries aren't required. Low emissions too.

Of course, if you really want to get a lot of mileage out of your Honda...

UPDATE: Cash for Clunkers could turn out to be one of the Obama Admin's most efficient ways to cut CO2 emissions and reduce fuel use if the goal is to get folks from the 12.5mpg to the 25mpg range. Hopefully they won't mess with that...

UPDATE/Bumped: "Hopefully they won't..." Dang. Spoke too soon.

UPDATE: Interesting backstory on the down side of destroying tens of thousands of perfectly reliable $4,500 cars. More here.

Hi! Your intrepid blogger (and part-time Navy reservist) is on location in Virginia. He has located what may be the antidote for those of you sick to death of self-righteous Prius pansies.

Behold: A real man's hybrid - The TerraMax.

cnet.com descibes the inner workings of this diesel electric hunk of awesomness:

While the truck is technically a hybrid, Oshkosh calls the drive system ProPulse. But the use of electric motors to drive the wheels means the electricity could come from any adequate source. The system uses less fuel than a straight diesel drivetrain because the diesel engine can run at a constant speed, and it doesn't need a transmission or drive shafts. And with its electricity-generation capabilities, it can provide enough electricity when stationary to power a city block.The HEMTT A3 also uses regenerative braking.

Even better, you'll be there to bail out your Government Motors Volt and plug-in-Prius buddies when they need a few extra KW to pick up their kids from yoga.

Nuthin' wrong with bein' neighborly.

It gets better. Oshkosh has been experimenting with a driverless version. Heh.

TerraMax is an autonomous tactical cargo hauler fielded by Oshkosh Truck Corporation, University of Parma's Artificial Vision and Intelligent Systems Laboratory and Rockwell Collins, also known under the name of Big Truck Robotics, that participated in both the 2004 and 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge. To navigate the terrain, the vehicle utilized three LIDAR laser-ranging units (one of which featured four planes), three cameras, and two GPS navigation systems.

Eureka! I found the new Government Motors (GM) Sector Chief for Vehicular Environmental Efficiency and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards Compliance.

Hey, nobody said adhering to higher CAFE standards would be pretty.

Honda invests in "people are fundamentally good" to sell its new Insight hybrid. Wonder if that'll be a more successful approach than the Prius business model:

  All people are planet warming spawns of satan 'cept me 'cus I drive a hybrid.

Wouldn't go with the notion that people are fundamentally good. But I think most try to do right by the environment these days. People are tired of being beat up for not being green enough.

Honda's on the right (starboard) tack here.

Excerpts from "New Obama rules will transform US auto fleet" :

Carpenters will still haul materials around in pickup trucks, but they will cost more.

So business' will get hit with higher costs. Especially small business'. Can our bankrupt car companies afford to sell less of trucks - a best seller?

That means cars and trucks on American roads will have to become smaller, lighter and more efficient.

"Smaller, lighter" to me means "less safe." I don't care if a Prius meets government standards, you can't change physics. More steel, more weight, more protection.

Already on Tuesday, some drivers were skeptical. Dixie Bishop, who runs a plumbing business in San Antonio that uses vans, worries the new requirements will drive up her costs at a time when customers are cutting back on repairs.

"Are they going to take my horsepower down?" she asked. "I have to be able to carry old water heaters and toilets. It's not beneficial for me to haul one water heater at a time. We need the power to pull these heavy items."

The government doesn't care about you Dixie. They think they can run your business better than you. And they believe in the Global Warming Hoax, and believe you should believe in it too.

Of course, developing the technology will cost money — billions of dollars — and automakers will pass that on to their customers.

No kidding.

The Obama administration says the changes mean the average vehicle would cost about $1,300 more, although some private analysts say the increase will be much heftier. The administration says gas savings will make up the difference in about three years.

Not when gas keeps rising. Who can wait three years?

Automakers have said they need stable, relatively high gasoline prices to create a market for electric vehicles. General Motors fears rolling out its rechargeable Chevrolet Volt next year with gas at $2 per gallon.

So it's in the government's best interest to not attempt to lower gas prices .

But the Volt is expected to sell for $35,000 to $40,000, and buyers may be unwilling to pay that much for a sedan, even if tax credits help ease the burden, unless gas prices soar.

Who want's to pay luxury prices for a car that - compared to the luxury cars - is a soda pop can?

Is anyone yet regretting electing these people who are intent on ruining your life? Yes, let's improve how we drive, but let's not drive off a cliff in the process. -D

If a Mercedes hybrid is not your cup of tea, join Glenn Reynolds for a tour of the new Lexus.

I explained that this was a bit out of my price range, but I have to say it was a very nice car. Seemed like a car for someone with a driver anyway, though, as the cavernous back seat (it reclines!) was the nicest part. Not my idiom, I’m afraid, but it does let you drive a really expensive car that gets not-very-great mileage while smugly proclaiming “it’s a hybrid!”

Says you could get it off the lot for a hundred grand. Not my idiom indeed. 

Meanwhile, Honda's set to clobber ToMoCo with a stable of hybrids for the rest of us.

Sunday Times online:

The key to a successful, wealth-generating economy is productivity. Saving energy is what businesses have done already, because it lowers their production costs. The problem with any form of subsidy is that it makes the consumer (through hidden taxes) pay to keep inherently uneconomic businesses “profitable”.

Until that day when there's no more money to borrow or steal to pay for it.

By the way - yes, there is return on investment for green energy. But if the ROI is longer than a president's first term (heck, let's give him two), it will get tougher to talk folks into picking up the tab.

...but The Big Apple will miss out on.  Lots more pics here.