Drove a hybrid this weekend

[bryanthompson]

My bosses and I took a road trip out to San Francisco this weekend, and I got my first chance to drive a hybrid--a Toyota Highlander hybrid suv. From Madison, WI to San Francisco, 37 hours. It looks like our average mileage was up around 28 mpg, which is a lot better than the 17 we got in a minivan last year.

Anyway... I was very impressed. When they get to a point where I can afford one, I will strongly consider picking one up. I left the display in 'consumption' mode, where you can watch the batteries charge off of the engine and off of the car's inertia/breaking power. I could feel the electric motors giving random boosts of power while it was on cruise at 79mph, but it seemed to be pretty smooth overall.

But, I gotta get some sleep. That was a loooong piece of driving. Anyone who thinks Nebraska/Kansas is boring driving needs to come down 80 through Utah and Nevada. Up until Reno, it's a snooooozefest.

[dd74]

I am beginning to like these hybrids - it took a lot of convincing, too.

I rode around in a Prius in San Diego. It really wasn't anything entirely special except for the fact that it was getting outstanding mileage, and you couldn't hear it...

...which is my concern for pedestrians, cyclists, runners and such who rely on engine and exhaust noise to hear oncoming cars. Otherwise, that little Prius is very nice. Supposedly it went from L.A. to San Diego doing about 80, and used a miniscule amount of fuel.

As to the Highlander, the only problem is it costs $37K+, which is extreme for a mid-level SUV. The upside (if you consider it one), is, IIRC, Car and Driver tested the Highlander as 0-60 in 6.6 seconds. Darn quick for something so large.

[snowman]

If not for the eco freaks and the electric car freaks, we could have had hybrids in 1975. That was what was recommended by real engineers back then. But NOOOO got to have electric cars, so called pollution free, if you forget about the electric plants and the toxic batteries. Political correctness at its best.

Pissed off engineer from the 70's.

I wrote a paper for a local community college back in 2000. I researched the latest and greatest automotive tec. My conclusions were:
1. Should be using hybrids as recommended in the 70's
2. Fuel cells, if ever developed, will use diesel, not hydrogen for fuel.

Number one is now fact, number 2 maybe..

[dd74]

Yep - the new diesels are impressive. Of course CA might never allow them in the state because of the supposed emissions, but that will happen only for the fact of ignorance.

Car and Driver and Motor Trend have articles on the new BMW 3-series diesel, and that car sounds terrific. Sure, it doesn't have all the bang of a 330 or of course an M3, but who cares? It's a sensible car.

Also, what I didn't know about the Audi R/10 race car (the diesel): it has the lowest emissions of any race car in its class, and it needs no mufflers because it's so quiet with its 6,500 maximum RPM.

Very exciting stuff.

[snowman]

Update on my research since 2000. Gas engines are now so clean and efficient that all the others, except diesel look like losers. Diesel looks like the hands down winner for future engines. Clean, very efficient. Even hybrids cannot beat them. Fuel cells of any kind, a distant dream.

[dd74]

Sounds right in re. to the diesel being the future. Non-performance driving relies on torque more than horsepower, especially anything above mid-number range.

I wonder with diesels, and their wide torque band, if six, and soon, seven-speed gearboxes may be things of the past...

Hope not: having gears is fun.

[speeder]

Originally posted by dd74
Sounds right in re. to the diesel being the future. Non-performance driving relies on torque more than horsepower, especially anything above mid-number range.

I wonder with diesels, and their wide torque band, if six, and soon, seven-speed gearboxes may be things of the past...

Hope not: having gears is fun.

The newest Chevy Duramax/Allison pickup has a 6-speed auto that is hands-down the best powertrain on the road, at least from a driving standpoint. Imagine a powerful turbo-diesel w/ a narrow (low) torque band that is *always* in its sweet spot the instant your foot goes down. Unbelievably fast and smooth.

[dd74]

Denis - I can imagine it in a nice four-door sedan, a small wagon or a sensible SUV. Do you think a diesel with that style of transmission will be more common two years from now when I might be in the market for such a vehicle?

[speeder]

Don't know, but at the present time diesels can only pass emissions in so-called "heavy duty" pickups, meaning 3/4 ton and above. I can tell you that a smaller version of these truck motors would move a passenger car or smaller SUV quite well and get great mileage.

The Duramax has 650 lb./ft. of torque @ 1700 rpm and turns a 7000 lb. crew cab 4x4 into an absolute bullet; you would have to drive it to believe it. It's as hard to obey the speed limit as in a Porsche. And it gets ~20 mpg @ 70 mph w/ cruise on. Imagine the same type engine w/ 75% of the output in a 3-4k lb. vehicle.

[turbo6bar]

Originally posted by dd74
Yep - the new diesels are impressive. Of course CA might never allow them in the state because of the supposed emissions, but that will happen only for the fact of ignorance.

I recently read an article arguing that evaporative emissions from gasoline are one of the biggest sources of pollution. When the tanker trucks refuel gas stations, the evaporation lost to the atmosphere is in the order of pounds of gasoline. There's additional loss when folks fill up their gas tanks. Diesel fuel isn't nearly as volatile, so the loss is far less during refueling activity. When emissions standards are measured in parts per million, pounds of gasoline lost to the air is a huge event. Think of the number of tanker trucks refueling gas stations every day.

The Dodge/Mercedes Sprinter vans have a 6 cylinder Mercedes turbo-diesel. Despite the huge frontal area, horrible coefficient of drag, and 7000+ lb curb weight, it's still good for 25 mpg. Why we cannot get smaller 6 cylinder diesels in light trucks, SUVs, and 4 cylinder engines in cars, is beyond me.

[Nathans_Dad]

If you think the hybrid is cool, just think of what would happen if you hooked up a gererator to it...

[jyl]

Data point - my father's 1st gen Prius has over 100K miles and going strong, extremely reliable. They were getting >50mpg (they do drive like old ladies) now getting 45 mpg, so mileage has deteriorated, possibly w/ battery age. But 45 mpg after 100K miles is not shabby . . .

[kaisen]

The Highlander Hybrid at 28 mpg pure freeway driving isn't too impressive. There are a few similar-sized gasoline SUVs that can that. And for thousands less.

If you drive in the city, maybe hybrids make sense.

[red-beard]

Originally posted by turbo6bar
I recently read an article arguing that evaporative emissions from gasoline are one of the biggest sources of pollution. When the tanker trucks refuel gas stations, the evaporation lost to the atmosphere is in the order of pounds of gasoline. There's additional loss when folks fill up their gas tanks. Diesel fuel isn't nearly as volatile, so the loss is far less during refueling activity. When emissions standards are measured in parts per million, pounds of gasoline lost to the air is a huge event. Think of the number of tanker trucks refueling gas stations every day.

The Dodge/Mercedes Sprinter vans have a 6 cylinder Mercedes turbo-diesel. Despite the huge frontal area, horrible coefficient of drag, and 7000+ lb curb weight, it's still good for 25 mpg. Why we cannot get smaller 6 cylinder diesels in light trucks, SUVs, and 4 cylinder engines in cars, is beyond me.

This is why we have sealed gas tanks, vapor recovery at the gas stations and vapor recovery to the tank trucks. And we have had this for years in any smog prone area.

[kaisen]

Originally posted by turbo6bar
The Dodge/Mercedes Sprinter vans have a 6 cylinder Mercedes turbo-diesel. Despite the huge frontal area, horrible coefficient of drag, and 7000+ lb curb weight, it's still good for 25 mpg. Why we cannot get smaller 6 cylinder diesels in light trucks, SUVs, and 4 cylinder engines in cars, is beyond me.

I'm with Speeder. The Duramax pickups out-do the Sprinter.

Sprinter is 2.7L I5 vs Duramax 6.6L V8
Sprinter is 154 hp vs Duramax 360 hp (more than double)
Sprinter is 243 torque vs Duramax 650 torque (way more than double - both at 1600 rpm)
Sprinter can tow up to 5,000 lbs vs Duramax 16,700 lbs (more than triple!)

I can tell you from personal experience that the Duramax trucks are good for 25 mpg as well.

The only reason for small displacement diesels are European tax codes and to fit in small vehicles.

E

[gaijindabe]

A huge cube van designed around urban deliveries really cant be compared a pick-up with a 4' x 8' bed. Two very different beasts. At least 99% of the sprinters do what they were designed to do while most pick-ups, ahem, seem to drive around less than fully loaded...

[turbo6bar]

Originally posted by kaisen
The only reason for small displacement diesels are European tax codes and to fit in small vehicles.

E

Yeah, big displacement engines are great for fuel efficiency.

[Z-man]

Originally posted by snowman
Update on my research since 2000. Gas engines are now so clean and efficient that all the others, except diesel look like losers. Diesel looks like the hands down winner for future engines. Clean, very efficient. Even hybrids cannot beat them. Fuel cells of any kind, a distant dream.

I agree.

Watch for the new Mercedes "Blue-tech" diesel. Amazingly clean machine is globs of power to boot!

I think the fuel cells are just around the corner. The problem is to bring something to market that won't cost $100,000 to build, and $150,000 to sell.

-Z

[dd74]

Originally posted by turbo6bar
Why we cannot get smaller 6 cylinder diesels in light trucks, SUVs, and 4 cylinder engines in cars, is beyond me.

Mention diesel to anyone in L.A. whose over 40 years old, and oddly enough, they remember the old diesel Mercedes Benz cars everyone bought in the 70s and 80s. The 70s version was as polluting as a diesel tractor, but the '80s was actually very nice. I drove one a couple times - not bad pickup for an '80s diesel. Barely heard the engine, as well. Those cars can be had for a song - between $3 and $4K last I saw - and it was pristine.

But yes, I agree with you. It'll take some cold hard non-scientific facts to convince those in Sacramento that we should have these cars. But then the chances are they're too hazed (pun intended) by the uninformed, assuming environmentalists that diesels now are like diesels back in the 1970s.

I mean, what do you expect from Cali - the only state that for a while refused to allow any V8-powered cars with manual transmissions to be sold within its borders because of environmental issues.

[dd74]

Originally posted by Z-man
I agree.

Watch for the new Mercedes "Blue-tech" diesel. Amazingly clean machine is globs of power to boot!

I think the fuel cells are just around the corner. The problem is to bring something to market that won't cost $100,000 to build, and $150,000 to sell.

-Z

Zoltan - does each car model Mercedes Benz produces include a diesel powered car? A C-series diesel wagon would be very nice. Are there any chance those might come to the U.S., particularly with the "blue tech" diesel you mention?