  Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 4512 Registered: 06-2004 |
Is it uncertainty about or unavailability of the Li-ion batteries? Is it price - is it that much more to combine hybrid and flex fuel when both are now available? Anyone know? Ford gives 88-MPG flex-fuel, plug-in Escape Hybrid to Department of Energy | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1877 Registered: 02-2006 |
Or how about this? 70 MPG Ford Fiesta to debut in Europe On today's technology. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 4513 Registered: 06-2004 |
Europe has different emissions and safety standards so looking to Europe for a North American product isn't quite the same. Besides that's a Fiesta, not an Escape... (Message edited by lilpup on June 24, 2008) | ||
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina Post Number: 217 Registered: 12-2004 |
The Fiesta is planned for the U.S. but we probably won't see the diesel engine, considering that diesel is still more expensive than gas here. | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 231 Registered: 03-2008 |
I would trust a Li-Ion battery about as far as I could throw it. And I do..  I fly electric model aircraft, often powered by Lithium Ion (& Lithium Polymer, and Nickel Metal Hydrate, and good old Nickel Cadmium) cells I scored from cellular phone & laptop suppliers. When they fail, it's usually pretty spectacular. LOTS of stored energy in a very confined space equals amazing fireworks, add in the fact that Lithium is flammable and it becomes very scary. I know several folks who've burnt down the house/car/garage when their model airplane battery pack cooked off during charging..keep in mind that we only run maybe 20-30 cells per pack in the larger planes. The cell count needed to reach the levels of energy required by that Escape (10,000 watts, I believe it said) would be in the thousands..with each cell being a potential bomb. The only way to make such a critter safe would be to have incredibly redundant failsafe systems to shut down the whole pack if one cell overheated or got out of balance. What this means in really simple terms is that you'd be relying on a couple thousand individual batteries to each perform PERFECTLY, as failure of any single cell would require shutdown and servicing by a qualified technician. It's cool, but it's not particularly practical..also, deep cycling Li-Ions to a 70% discharge as stated in the article is pretty much guaranteeing a short life overall, and cellular imbalances on a daily basis. 10,000 watts of stored energy is WAY more than I'd feel comfy parking in my garage..think of a charged Li-Ion battery as a very tightly coiled clock spring waiting to go "SPROING!" at all times..by comparison, a full tank of gasoline is comparable to a nearly relaxed spring..it doesn't get "wound up" until it's been mixed with air & compressed inside your engine. I have great faith in battery technology..the energy storage capacity to volume ratio has risen by a couple dozen orders of magnitude in the past ten or fifteen years IMHO..but the safety and reliability isn't there yet. When you stop reading about the occasional laptop or cell phone burning up for no apparent reason, the problem will be licked..in the meantime, multi-cellular packs are best left to nerds who understand and don't mind dealing with the dangers of improperly balanced or damaged cells. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 883 Registered: 07-2006 |
As for the Escape, building a one-of-a-kind, while not simple by a long shot, is still a far cry from mass producing it, which is the hardest part of the equation. How reliable is it? How long will the batteries last? How crash-worthy is it? And most importantly, how much does it cost? This vehicle isn't mass-marketable if it costs $100,000 to build, particularly if the batteries go on the fritz in cold weather and die in two years. Now the diesel Fiesta, I wouldn't be surprised to see come here at some point. The question is, will Americans be willing to pay more for their fuel in exchange for better gas mileage? Mathematically, it's worth it, but people are, in general, morons and don't realize when something works in their own favor. (You'd be amazed how many people think 'Buy one get one for $1' is a better deal than '50% off') And how many will avoid it simply because of the negative connotations of diesel engines, which is the main reason we have so few diesel vehicles here in the US? | ||
Ro_resident Member Username: Ro_resident Post Number: 320 Registered: 11-2003 |
The 70 mpg is based on the British gallon. Converted to the US gallon, the car would get 58 mpg. That's still 2x the fuel economy of my Focus. Assuming $4/gallon for gas and $5/g for diesel, my Focus costs $0.13 per mile, the Fiesta $0.09 (that's for the fuel costs only, ignoring all other costs). | ||
Nainrouge Member Username: Nainrouge Post Number: 2208 Registered: 05-2006 |
Zrx_doug, The battery packs for use in cars are much different. The nanotechnology batteries from Altairnano, for example, do not have the same safety issues as the smaller lithium ion batteries: http://www.altairnano.com/mark ets_energy_systems.html | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 232 Registered: 03-2008 |
Not particularly..if you look at the graph, you'll see that the "nano tech" batteries pull off their safety trick by falling back to nearly the same power/weight ratio of Nickel Metal Hydrate (NiMH) batteries, which is only mildly better than a conventional lead/acid cell. Take a look at the way they cleverly stacked the vertical scale on their graph, and you'll see what I'm talking about. | ||
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine Post Number: 2169 Registered: 05-2005 |
what's keeping it off the market is the fact that building one or two vehicles costs a whole lot less than building 10's of thousands of them. i am all for vehicles like this, the volt, smaller european market cars, but car companies are in business to generate profit, and if the numbers don't add up, they don't add up. | ||
Supersport Member Username: Supersport Post Number: 11814 Registered: 10-2003 |
It would only be a matter of time before some irresponsible parent leaves their lithium powered vehicle unattended and an innocent child dies. I say we ban these vehicles before they become another gun epidemic. | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 234 Registered: 03-2008 |
SS, if I felt that way, I wouldn't have all the bricks of LiIon batteries in my home that I do. (Stored in fireproof metal boxes capable of containing an explosion, BTW..do you suppose I do that with conventional batteries?) Safety & reliability to match the performance levels possible WILL come..but it's not here yet. A reasonable amount of caution in the hands of folks who understand the dangers is not particularly bad..but I can't say that the average automotive consumer either understands dangers OR practices safe product usage/storage. When hi-perf battery tech is as safe as current lead/acid tech, the time will be right to unleash it on Joe Sixpack. | ||
Higgs1634 Member Username: Higgs1634 Post Number: 548 Registered: 10-2005 |
The Trilateral commission keeps these off the market. There are completely functioning cars that run on water. The inventor was killed by OPEC operatives and the technology was stolen by Haliburton to keep it a secret. | ||
Sharmaal Member Username: Sharmaal Post Number: 1321 Registered: 09-2004 |
"what's keeping it off the market is the fact that building one or two vehicles costs a whole lot less than building 10's of thousands of them." Would you care to flesh out your statement a little more? | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1878 Registered: 02-2006 |
quote: Ah, they changed the article since I posted it. They said before that it would equal approximately 70mpg on the US cycle, but now the article sais 63mpg US. | ||
Gencinjay Member Username: Gencinjay Post Number: 12 Registered: 03-2008 |
All the automakers are saying the new fuel standards are out of line and the current technology can not be improved. Here's my question though. They had a couple of cars in the early 90's that could get 50 mpg, Geo Prism I believe was one of them. Why could they get it 12 years ago but not now? | ||
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine Post Number: 2172 Registered: 05-2005 |
quote: to build a small batch of vehicles, especially off of an already engineered, validated, and DOT approved vehicle, you need merely to have a small shop convert/upgrade/retrofit said vehicles, not make huge investments on chaging on a whole vehicle plant line, more tooling specific to the powertrain, and training workers to build thousands of them. ford likely had these couple examples built in one of their prototype shops, and only cost a little engineering, and handful of parts and some skilled labor | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 4515 Registered: 06-2004 |
"They had a couple of cars in the early 90's that could get 50 mpg, Geo Prism I believe was one of them. Why could they get it 12 years ago but not now?" Offhand I don't recall any cars getting 50 mpg, but still there are standards changes that have taken place between now and then. Lower emission requirements, higher safety standards, etc. that most consumers aren't even aware of. There have also been product standards, such as sound-deadening insulation, that has added a lot of weight to vehicles. Also, the EPA just recently changed the way they test for mpg - don't know if it's resulted in upward or downward mpg number shifts. | ||
Douglasm Member Username: Douglasm Post Number: 1100 Registered: 10-2003 |
A Prism? Probably not 50 mpg, being nothing more than a warmed over Toyota Corolla. The Geo Metro on the other hand did deliver mpg in the 50 range, but had 2 major problems. First, the 1 litre 3-cylinder engine developed a whopping 55 horsepower and the ability to top the mountain passes around here with the speed of a mid 60's VW Microbus. Second, it didn't have any room. The trunk in my Kia barely holds what my wife and I haul around to do our job as grocery merchandisers, stuffing it in a Metro would be a joke. As much as they may whine about gas prices, the North American consumer seems to balk at purchasing anything approaching (original) VW Beetle performance figures and/or storage space. Develop me a Buick Century that gets 50+ mpg on the highway with as much guts as their early 90's 3.3 litre 6. THAT would be progress..... | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1880 Registered: 02-2006 |
What? The Metro was a hatchback, it had plenty of room. Room for 5 passengers AND all their luggage? Hell no. But room enough for most things? Yeah. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 1443 Registered: 07-2007 |
so its back to drilling at Anwar i guess, the old cheap reliable safe standby. | ||
Craigu Member Username: Craigu Post Number: 23 Registered: 04-2008 |
Did anyone see the Chevy Volt at the car show? It looks good in the pictures; I'd love to see one. | ||
Wazootyman Member Username: Wazootyman Post Number: 374 Registered: 02-2006 |
quote: It's shifted figures downward - it's supposed to be more realistic. The 1990 Geo Metro was rated at 46/50 MPG (city/highway), but based on the 2008 method, it would only get 38/45 MPG. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg /ratings2008.shtml But yeah, 55 HP isn't much - even the Fit/Yaris (not fast by any means) are double that now. | ||
Kell31 Member Username: Kell31 Post Number: 22 Registered: 10-2004 |
I think we should start the drilling off of Kennebunkport (or however you spell it). Let the drilling start in these politicians back yards. | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 244 Registered: 03-2008 |
Wait a couple years, then it won't be Kennedy's back yard any more.. What, too soon? | ||
Gencinjay Member Username: Gencinjay Post Number: 13 Registered: 03-2008 |
They had the Volt at the Dream Cruise last summer. That will be a magnificent car if they can ever get it rolling down the production line. | ||
Swimmaven Member Username: Swimmaven Post Number: 19 Registered: 05-2007 |
HEY FORD! I want a hybrid MUSTANG that gets 50mpg with a great battery/batteries, not some ugly ass SUV. START LISTENING before you are bought up by a private equity firm and dismantled by Nardeli. | ||
Otter Member Username: Otter Post Number: 218 Registered: 12-2007 |
All the automakers are saying the new fuel standards are out of line and the current technology can not be improved. Here's my question though. They had a couple of cars in the early 90's that could get 50 mpg, Geo Prism I believe was one of them. Why could they get it 12 years ago but not now? ************** The two big reasons for this are performance and weight. Cars weigh, on average, noticeably more now than they did even 10 to 15 years ago, on the order of a few hundred pounds, at least. A typical C-segment car in the early 90s weighed around 2400-2500 pounds, whereas most such cars weigh around 2800-3000 today. I think that there is only one car on sale in the US today (the Lotus Elise) that weighs less than a ton. The two biggest contriutors to weight are, in order, heavier body structures (both for stiffness and crash performance) and additional equipment. To give an example, a new Cadillac CTS, which is not a particularly large car, weighs about the same as an early 90s full-size GM wagon (Caprice/Roadmaster/Custom Cruiser). Most people would suppose the wagon to weigh more, as it is distinctly land-yacht-like. At the same time, the CTS gets better mileage. As for performance, customers have become accustomed to, and expectant of, increasing levels of performance. Cars today are quite a lot quicker than they were in the 80s. Even without reducing weight, if you scaled down engine output and straight-line performance levels with it, you would increase economy with little effort. The nice thing about reducing weight, or keeping weight low to begin with, is that everything else can scale with it. As for 50mpg+ vehicles, two that I can think of from the 90s were the Honda CRX HF and the Civic VX. | ||
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert Post Number: 297 Registered: 11-2007 |
Otter is correct. Those cars were much lighter than current ones, and had much worse acceleration. I don't think the CRX or the Civic VX could meet current safety standards. To get the weight back down while maintaining crashworthiness, people claim that you would have to use more exotic materials, which are expensive and require different manufacturing processes. No doubt we will see more of that, but it is a barrier. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 4552 Registered: 06-2004 |
Another possible problem with exotic materials is how they behave in an accident. They're not going to crumple like steel does. | ||
Jb3 Member Username: Jb3 Post Number: 405 Registered: 06-2007 |
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/ 2006/battery-hybrid.html just throwin it out there. Still looking around for the battery that USO is supposed to have sold the patent on to Chevron, which in turn has refused to put it into commercial production for anything other than military use, even going so far as to deny Tesla motors any sale of it. |
