Hybrids?
04-24-2006, 01:19 PM
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrids?
"reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote
> >So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging on
> >his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has "lots of
> >power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the technology but
> >here is my question.
> >
> >Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
> >trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
> >
> >Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC Yukon?
> >If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that be a
> >home run for conservation? ....
>
>
> DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
> RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
> Durango and BMW with ?
>
> I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
I suspect you are right.
"Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that drives the
car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling at a stop
or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly used in
such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion (chemical ->
mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical) uses
more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
applications.
My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21 MPG with a
small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into effect in
1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor 12-15MPG.
Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed FI
engine???
> >So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging on
> >his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has "lots of
> >power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the technology but
> >here is my question.
> >
> >Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
> >trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
> >
> >Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC Yukon?
> >If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that be a
> >home run for conservation? ....
>
>
> DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
> RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
> Durango and BMW with ?
>
> I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
I suspect you are right.
"Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that drives the
car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling at a stop
or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly used in
such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion (chemical ->
mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical) uses
more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
applications.
My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21 MPG with a
small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into effect in
1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor 12-15MPG.
Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed FI
engine???
04-24-2006, 01:19 PM
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrids?
"reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote
> >So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging on
> >his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has "lots of
> >power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the technology but
> >here is my question.
> >
> >Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
> >trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
> >
> >Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC Yukon?
> >If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that be a
> >home run for conservation? ....
>
>
> DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
> RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
> Durango and BMW with ?
>
> I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
I suspect you are right.
"Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that drives the
car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling at a stop
or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly used in
such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion (chemical ->
mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical) uses
more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
applications.
My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21 MPG with a
small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into effect in
1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor 12-15MPG.
Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed FI
engine???
> >So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging on
> >his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has "lots of
> >power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the technology but
> >here is my question.
> >
> >Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
> >trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
> >
> >Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC Yukon?
> >If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that be a
> >home run for conservation? ....
>
>
> DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
> RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
> Durango and BMW with ?
>
> I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
I suspect you are right.
"Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that drives the
car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling at a stop
or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly used in
such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion (chemical ->
mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical) uses
more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
applications.
My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21 MPG with a
small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into effect in
1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor 12-15MPG.
Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed FI
engine???
04-24-2006, 01:19 PM
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrids?
"reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote
> >So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging on
> >his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has "lots of
> >power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the technology but
> >here is my question.
> >
> >Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
> >trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
> >
> >Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC Yukon?
> >If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that be a
> >home run for conservation? ....
>
>
> DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
> RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
> Durango and BMW with ?
>
> I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
I suspect you are right.
"Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that drives the
car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling at a stop
or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly used in
such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion (chemical ->
mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical) uses
more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
applications.
My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21 MPG with a
small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into effect in
1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor 12-15MPG.
Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed FI
engine???
> >So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging on
> >his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has "lots of
> >power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the technology but
> >here is my question.
> >
> >Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
> >trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
> >
> >Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC Yukon?
> >If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that be a
> >home run for conservation? ....
>
>
> DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
> RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
> Durango and BMW with ?
>
> I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
I suspect you are right.
"Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that drives the
car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling at a stop
or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly used in
such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion (chemical ->
mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical) uses
more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
applications.
My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21 MPG with a
small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into effect in
1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor 12-15MPG.
Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed FI
engine???
04-24-2006, 01:39 PM
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrids?
Vito wrote:
>
> "reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote
> > >So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging on
> > >his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has "lots of
> > >power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the technology but
> > >here is my question.
> > >
> > >Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
> > >trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
> > >
> > >Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC Yukon?
> > >If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that be a
> > >home run for conservation? ....
> >
> >
> > DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
> > RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
> > Durango and BMW with ?
> >
> > I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
>
> I suspect you are right.
>
> "Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that drives the
> car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling at a stop
> or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly used in
> such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion (chemical ->
> mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical) uses
> more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
> applications.
>
> My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21 MPG with a
> small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into effect in
> 1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor 12-15MPG.
> Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed FI
> engine???
Yup, what a snow job. The original 70's Honda Civic got 50 mpg if you
drove it easy, same for the Austin Mini and they both went like scalded
cats when tuned nice. I got clocked at 132 mph in one Mini I owned and
it wasn't tached out.
I was as the Canadian Road Race of Champions on a Mosport track in the
70's and a Mini and Civic were nose and nose at the finish. They had
lapped 3rd place which was a Porsche Turbo Carrera with a Vett or Camaro
bringing up a dismal 4th.
I got a nice 25% increase in fuel mileage up to 23 mpg in my CJ7 when I
killed the 'emissions' computer and it still has really low emissions
numbers.
The new engines are pigs in comparison.
Mike
>
> "reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote
> > >So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging on
> > >his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has "lots of
> > >power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the technology but
> > >here is my question.
> > >
> > >Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
> > >trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
> > >
> > >Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC Yukon?
> > >If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that be a
> > >home run for conservation? ....
> >
> >
> > DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
> > RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
> > Durango and BMW with ?
> >
> > I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
>
> I suspect you are right.
>
> "Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that drives the
> car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling at a stop
> or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly used in
> such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion (chemical ->
> mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical) uses
> more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
> applications.
>
> My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21 MPG with a
> small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into effect in
> 1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor 12-15MPG.
> Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed FI
> engine???
Yup, what a snow job. The original 70's Honda Civic got 50 mpg if you
drove it easy, same for the Austin Mini and they both went like scalded
cats when tuned nice. I got clocked at 132 mph in one Mini I owned and
it wasn't tached out.
I was as the Canadian Road Race of Champions on a Mosport track in the
70's and a Mini and Civic were nose and nose at the finish. They had
lapped 3rd place which was a Porsche Turbo Carrera with a Vett or Camaro
bringing up a dismal 4th.
I got a nice 25% increase in fuel mileage up to 23 mpg in my CJ7 when I
killed the 'emissions' computer and it still has really low emissions
numbers.
The new engines are pigs in comparison.
Mike
04-24-2006, 01:39 PM
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrids?
Vito wrote:
>
> "reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote
> > >So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging on
> > >his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has "lots of
> > >power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the technology but
> > >here is my question.
> > >
> > >Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
> > >trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
> > >
> > >Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC Yukon?
> > >If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that be a
> > >home run for conservation? ....
> >
> >
> > DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
> > RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
> > Durango and BMW with ?
> >
> > I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
>
> I suspect you are right.
>
> "Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that drives the
> car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling at a stop
> or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly used in
> such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion (chemical ->
> mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical) uses
> more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
> applications.
>
> My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21 MPG with a
> small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into effect in
> 1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor 12-15MPG.
> Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed FI
> engine???
Yup, what a snow job. The original 70's Honda Civic got 50 mpg if you
drove it easy, same for the Austin Mini and they both went like scalded
cats when tuned nice. I got clocked at 132 mph in one Mini I owned and
it wasn't tached out.
I was as the Canadian Road Race of Champions on a Mosport track in the
70's and a Mini and Civic were nose and nose at the finish. They had
lapped 3rd place which was a Porsche Turbo Carrera with a Vett or Camaro
bringing up a dismal 4th.
I got a nice 25% increase in fuel mileage up to 23 mpg in my CJ7 when I
killed the 'emissions' computer and it still has really low emissions
numbers.
The new engines are pigs in comparison.
Mike
>
> "reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote
> > >So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging on
> > >his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has "lots of
> > >power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the technology but
> > >here is my question.
> > >
> > >Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
> > >trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
> > >
> > >Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC Yukon?
> > >If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that be a
> > >home run for conservation? ....
> >
> >
> > DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
> > RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
> > Durango and BMW with ?
> >
> > I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
>
> I suspect you are right.
>
> "Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that drives the
> car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling at a stop
> or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly used in
> such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion (chemical ->
> mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical) uses
> more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
> applications.
>
> My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21 MPG with a
> small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into effect in
> 1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor 12-15MPG.
> Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed FI
> engine???
Yup, what a snow job. The original 70's Honda Civic got 50 mpg if you
drove it easy, same for the Austin Mini and they both went like scalded
cats when tuned nice. I got clocked at 132 mph in one Mini I owned and
it wasn't tached out.
I was as the Canadian Road Race of Champions on a Mosport track in the
70's and a Mini and Civic were nose and nose at the finish. They had
lapped 3rd place which was a Porsche Turbo Carrera with a Vett or Camaro
bringing up a dismal 4th.
I got a nice 25% increase in fuel mileage up to 23 mpg in my CJ7 when I
killed the 'emissions' computer and it still has really low emissions
numbers.
The new engines are pigs in comparison.
Mike
04-24-2006, 01:39 PM
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrids?
Vito wrote:
>
> "reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote
> > >So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging on
> > >his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has "lots of
> > >power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the technology but
> > >here is my question.
> > >
> > >Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
> > >trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
> > >
> > >Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC Yukon?
> > >If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that be a
> > >home run for conservation? ....
> >
> >
> > DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
> > RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
> > Durango and BMW with ?
> >
> > I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
>
> I suspect you are right.
>
> "Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that drives the
> car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling at a stop
> or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly used in
> such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion (chemical ->
> mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical) uses
> more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
> applications.
>
> My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21 MPG with a
> small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into effect in
> 1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor 12-15MPG.
> Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed FI
> engine???
Yup, what a snow job. The original 70's Honda Civic got 50 mpg if you
drove it easy, same for the Austin Mini and they both went like scalded
cats when tuned nice. I got clocked at 132 mph in one Mini I owned and
it wasn't tached out.
I was as the Canadian Road Race of Champions on a Mosport track in the
70's and a Mini and Civic were nose and nose at the finish. They had
lapped 3rd place which was a Porsche Turbo Carrera with a Vett or Camaro
bringing up a dismal 4th.
I got a nice 25% increase in fuel mileage up to 23 mpg in my CJ7 when I
killed the 'emissions' computer and it still has really low emissions
numbers.
The new engines are pigs in comparison.
Mike
>
> "reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote
> > >So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging on
> > >his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has "lots of
> > >power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the technology but
> > >here is my question.
> > >
> > >Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
> > >trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
> > >
> > >Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC Yukon?
> > >If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that be a
> > >home run for conservation? ....
> >
> >
> > DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
> > RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
> > Durango and BMW with ?
> >
> > I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
>
> I suspect you are right.
>
> "Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that drives the
> car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling at a stop
> or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly used in
> such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion (chemical ->
> mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical) uses
> more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
> applications.
>
> My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21 MPG with a
> small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into effect in
> 1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor 12-15MPG.
> Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed FI
> engine???
Yup, what a snow job. The original 70's Honda Civic got 50 mpg if you
drove it easy, same for the Austin Mini and they both went like scalded
cats when tuned nice. I got clocked at 132 mph in one Mini I owned and
it wasn't tached out.
I was as the Canadian Road Race of Champions on a Mosport track in the
70's and a Mini and Civic were nose and nose at the finish. They had
lapped 3rd place which was a Porsche Turbo Carrera with a Vett or Camaro
bringing up a dismal 4th.
I got a nice 25% increase in fuel mileage up to 23 mpg in my CJ7 when I
killed the 'emissions' computer and it still has really low emissions
numbers.
The new engines are pigs in comparison.
Mike
04-24-2006, 02:08 PM
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jeep more enviromentally friendly was Re: Hybrids?
check out this site
http://www.auto123.com/en/info/news/...tid=59574&pg=1
Mike Romain wrote:
> Vito wrote:
>
>>"reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote
>>
>>>>So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging on
>>>>his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has "lots of
>>>>power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the technology but
>>>>here is my question.
>>>>
>>>>Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
>>>>trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
>>>>
>>>>Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC Yukon?
>>>>If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that be a
>>>>home run for conservation? ....
>>>
>>>
>>>DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
>>>RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
>>>Durango and BMW with ?
>>>
>>>I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
>>
>>I suspect you are right.
>>
>>"Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that drives the
>>car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling at a stop
>>or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly used in
>>such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion (chemical ->
>>mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical) uses
>>more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
>>applications.
>>
>>My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21 MPG with a
>>small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into effect in
>>1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor 12-15MPG.
>>Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed FI
>>engine???
>
>
> Yup, what a snow job. The original 70's Honda Civic got 50 mpg if you
> drove it easy, same for the Austin Mini and they both went like scalded
> cats when tuned nice. I got clocked at 132 mph in one Mini I owned and
> it wasn't tached out.
>
> I was as the Canadian Road Race of Champions on a Mosport track in the
> 70's and a Mini and Civic were nose and nose at the finish. They had
> lapped 3rd place which was a Porsche Turbo Carrera with a Vett or Camaro
> bringing up a dismal 4th.
>
> I got a nice 25% increase in fuel mileage up to 23 mpg in my CJ7 when I
> killed the 'emissions' computer and it still has really low emissions
> numbers.
>
> The new engines are pigs in comparison.
>
> Mike
http://www.auto123.com/en/info/news/...tid=59574&pg=1
Mike Romain wrote:
> Vito wrote:
>
>>"reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote
>>
>>>>So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging on
>>>>his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has "lots of
>>>>power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the technology but
>>>>here is my question.
>>>>
>>>>Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
>>>>trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
>>>>
>>>>Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC Yukon?
>>>>If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that be a
>>>>home run for conservation? ....
>>>
>>>
>>>DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
>>>RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
>>>Durango and BMW with ?
>>>
>>>I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
>>
>>I suspect you are right.
>>
>>"Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that drives the
>>car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling at a stop
>>or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly used in
>>such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion (chemical ->
>>mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical) uses
>>more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
>>applications.
>>
>>My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21 MPG with a
>>small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into effect in
>>1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor 12-15MPG.
>>Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed FI
>>engine???
>
>
> Yup, what a snow job. The original 70's Honda Civic got 50 mpg if you
> drove it easy, same for the Austin Mini and they both went like scalded
> cats when tuned nice. I got clocked at 132 mph in one Mini I owned and
> it wasn't tached out.
>
> I was as the Canadian Road Race of Champions on a Mosport track in the
> 70's and a Mini and Civic were nose and nose at the finish. They had
> lapped 3rd place which was a Porsche Turbo Carrera with a Vett or Camaro
> bringing up a dismal 4th.
>
> I got a nice 25% increase in fuel mileage up to 23 mpg in my CJ7 when I
> killed the 'emissions' computer and it still has really low emissions
> numbers.
>
> The new engines are pigs in comparison.
>
> Mike
04-24-2006, 02:08 PM
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jeep more enviromentally friendly was Re: Hybrids?
check out this site
http://www.auto123.com/en/info/news/...tid=59574&pg=1
Mike Romain wrote:
> Vito wrote:
>
>>"reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote
>>
>>>>So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging on
>>>>his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has "lots of
>>>>power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the technology but
>>>>here is my question.
>>>>
>>>>Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
>>>>trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
>>>>
>>>>Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC Yukon?
>>>>If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that be a
>>>>home run for conservation? ....
>>>
>>>
>>>DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
>>>RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
>>>Durango and BMW with ?
>>>
>>>I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
>>
>>I suspect you are right.
>>
>>"Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that drives the
>>car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling at a stop
>>or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly used in
>>such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion (chemical ->
>>mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical) uses
>>more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
>>applications.
>>
>>My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21 MPG with a
>>small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into effect in
>>1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor 12-15MPG.
>>Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed FI
>>engine???
>
>
> Yup, what a snow job. The original 70's Honda Civic got 50 mpg if you
> drove it easy, same for the Austin Mini and they both went like scalded
> cats when tuned nice. I got clocked at 132 mph in one Mini I owned and
> it wasn't tached out.
>
> I was as the Canadian Road Race of Champions on a Mosport track in the
> 70's and a Mini and Civic were nose and nose at the finish. They had
> lapped 3rd place which was a Porsche Turbo Carrera with a Vett or Camaro
> bringing up a dismal 4th.
>
> I got a nice 25% increase in fuel mileage up to 23 mpg in my CJ7 when I
> killed the 'emissions' computer and it still has really low emissions
> numbers.
>
> The new engines are pigs in comparison.
>
> Mike
http://www.auto123.com/en/info/news/...tid=59574&pg=1
Mike Romain wrote:
> Vito wrote:
>
>>"reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote
>>
>>>>So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging on
>>>>his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has "lots of
>>>>power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the technology but
>>>>here is my question.
>>>>
>>>>Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
>>>>trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
>>>>
>>>>Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC Yukon?
>>>>If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that be a
>>>>home run for conservation? ....
>>>
>>>
>>>DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
>>>RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
>>>Durango and BMW with ?
>>>
>>>I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
>>
>>I suspect you are right.
>>
>>"Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that drives the
>>car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling at a stop
>>or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly used in
>>such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion (chemical ->
>>mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical) uses
>>more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
>>applications.
>>
>>My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21 MPG with a
>>small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into effect in
>>1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor 12-15MPG.
>>Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed FI
>>engine???
>
>
> Yup, what a snow job. The original 70's Honda Civic got 50 mpg if you
> drove it easy, same for the Austin Mini and they both went like scalded
> cats when tuned nice. I got clocked at 132 mph in one Mini I owned and
> it wasn't tached out.
>
> I was as the Canadian Road Race of Champions on a Mosport track in the
> 70's and a Mini and Civic were nose and nose at the finish. They had
> lapped 3rd place which was a Porsche Turbo Carrera with a Vett or Camaro
> bringing up a dismal 4th.
>
> I got a nice 25% increase in fuel mileage up to 23 mpg in my CJ7 when I
> killed the 'emissions' computer and it still has really low emissions
> numbers.
>
> The new engines are pigs in comparison.
>
> Mike
04-24-2006, 02:08 PM
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jeep more enviromentally friendly was Re: Hybrids?
check out this site
http://www.auto123.com/en/info/news/...tid=59574&pg=1
Mike Romain wrote:
> Vito wrote:
>
>>"reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote
>>
>>>>So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging on
>>>>his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has "lots of
>>>>power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the technology but
>>>>here is my question.
>>>>
>>>>Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
>>>>trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
>>>>
>>>>Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC Yukon?
>>>>If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that be a
>>>>home run for conservation? ....
>>>
>>>
>>>DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
>>>RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
>>>Durango and BMW with ?
>>>
>>>I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
>>
>>I suspect you are right.
>>
>>"Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that drives the
>>car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling at a stop
>>or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly used in
>>such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion (chemical ->
>>mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical) uses
>>more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
>>applications.
>>
>>My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21 MPG with a
>>small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into effect in
>>1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor 12-15MPG.
>>Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed FI
>>engine???
>
>
> Yup, what a snow job. The original 70's Honda Civic got 50 mpg if you
> drove it easy, same for the Austin Mini and they both went like scalded
> cats when tuned nice. I got clocked at 132 mph in one Mini I owned and
> it wasn't tached out.
>
> I was as the Canadian Road Race of Champions on a Mosport track in the
> 70's and a Mini and Civic were nose and nose at the finish. They had
> lapped 3rd place which was a Porsche Turbo Carrera with a Vett or Camaro
> bringing up a dismal 4th.
>
> I got a nice 25% increase in fuel mileage up to 23 mpg in my CJ7 when I
> killed the 'emissions' computer and it still has really low emissions
> numbers.
>
> The new engines are pigs in comparison.
>
> Mike
http://www.auto123.com/en/info/news/...tid=59574&pg=1
Mike Romain wrote:
> Vito wrote:
>
>>"reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote
>>
>>>>So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging on
>>>>his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has "lots of
>>>>power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the technology but
>>>>here is my question.
>>>>
>>>>Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
>>>>trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
>>>>
>>>>Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC Yukon?
>>>>If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that be a
>>>>home run for conservation? ....
>>>
>>>
>>>DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
>>>RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
>>>Durango and BMW with ?
>>>
>>>I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
>>
>>I suspect you are right.
>>
>>"Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that drives the
>>car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling at a stop
>>or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly used in
>>such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion (chemical ->
>>mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical) uses
>>more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
>>applications.
>>
>>My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21 MPG with a
>>small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into effect in
>>1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor 12-15MPG.
>>Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed FI
>>engine???
>
>
> Yup, what a snow job. The original 70's Honda Civic got 50 mpg if you
> drove it easy, same for the Austin Mini and they both went like scalded
> cats when tuned nice. I got clocked at 132 mph in one Mini I owned and
> it wasn't tached out.
>
> I was as the Canadian Road Race of Champions on a Mosport track in the
> 70's and a Mini and Civic were nose and nose at the finish. They had
> lapped 3rd place which was a Porsche Turbo Carrera with a Vett or Camaro
> bringing up a dismal 4th.
>
> I got a nice 25% increase in fuel mileage up to 23 mpg in my CJ7 when I
> killed the 'emissions' computer and it still has really low emissions
> numbers.
>
> The new engines are pigs in comparison.
>
> Mike
04-24-2006, 07:36 PM
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep more enviromentally friendly was Re: Hybrids?
So I am driving an economy car now?
Earle
"FrankW" <fworm@norpak.ca> wrote in message
news:H6mdndV86fUmjtDZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@magma.ca...
> check out this site
>
> http://www.auto123.com/en/info/news/...tid=59574&pg=1
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
>
> > Vito wrote:
> >
> >>"reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote
> >>
> >>>>So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging
on
> >>>>his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has
"lots of
> >>>>power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the
technology but
> >>>>here is my question.
> >>>>
> >>>>Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
> >>>>trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
> >>>>
> >>>>Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC
Yukon?
> >>>>If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that
be a
> >>>>home run for conservation? ....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
> >>>RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
> >>>Durango and BMW with ?
> >>>
> >>>I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
> >>
> >>I suspect you are right.
> >>
> >>"Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that
drives the
> >>car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling
at a stop
> >>or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly
used in
> >>such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion
(chemical ->
> >>mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical)
uses
> >>more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
> >>applications.
> >>
> >>My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21
MPG with a
> >>small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into
effect in
> >>1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor
12-15MPG.
> >>Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed
FI
> >>engine???
> >
> >
> > Yup, what a snow job. The original 70's Honda Civic got 50 mpg if you
> > drove it easy, same for the Austin Mini and they both went like scalded
> > cats when tuned nice. I got clocked at 132 mph in one Mini I owned and
> > it wasn't tached out.
> >
> > I was as the Canadian Road Race of Champions on a Mosport track in the
> > 70's and a Mini and Civic were nose and nose at the finish. They had
> > lapped 3rd place which was a Porsche Turbo Carrera with a Vett or Camaro
> > bringing up a dismal 4th.
> >
> > I got a nice 25% increase in fuel mileage up to 23 mpg in my CJ7 when I
> > killed the 'emissions' computer and it still has really low emissions
> > numbers.
> >
> > The new engines are pigs in comparison.
> >
> > Mike
>
Earle
"FrankW" <fworm@norpak.ca> wrote in message
news:H6mdndV86fUmjtDZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@magma.ca...
> check out this site
>
> http://www.auto123.com/en/info/news/...tid=59574&pg=1
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
>
> > Vito wrote:
> >
> >>"reboot" <reboot@nothere.com> wrote
> >>
> >>>>So I'm listening to this guy on the radio who calls in and is bragging
on
> >>>>his Honda Civic Hybrid. Gets 40mpg or better and he claims it has
"lots of
> >>>>power". So I'm not an engineer and I have not researched the
technology but
> >>>>here is my question.
> >>>>
> >>>>Why are automakers making hybrid autos out of small cars? Why are they
> >>>>trying to add mpgs to autos that already get better than average mpg?
> >>>>
> >>>>Wouldn't it be more productive to try and double the mpg on the GMC
Yukon?
> >>>>If I can take an SUV or a PU truck from 12 mpg to 24 mpg wouldn't that
be a
> >>>>home run for conservation? ....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>DCX, GM and BMW (in cooperation with each other) are developing hybrid
> >>>RWD applications, GM with the GMT900 series, Chrysler Group with the
> >>>Durango and BMW with ?
> >>>
> >>>I suspect that sales of the big vehicles will be disappointing ....
> >>
> >>I suspect you are right.
> >>
> >>"Hybrid" involves using a gasoline engine to make electricity that
drives the
> >>car. It does save gas whenever, but only whenever, your car is idling
at a stop
> >>or going very slowly. The mfgrs use it in small cars that are commonly
used in
> >>such heavy traffic situations. But the multiple energy conversion
(chemical ->
> >>mechanical -> electric -> chemical (battery) -> electric -> mechanical)
uses
> >>more gas in highway driving so it'll prolly prove unpopular in "highway"
> >>applications.
> >>
> >>My 1957 Renault Dauphine got 42-45 MPG and my 1967 Fairlane got 18-21
MPG with a
> >>small V8 and auto trans. but, thanks to "smog" laws that went into
effect in
> >>1970, my buddy's 1972 Dodge with similar motor and tranny only gor
12-15MPG.
> >>Wonder what the Renault could have done with a modern computer managed
FI
> >>engine???
> >
> >
> > Yup, what a snow job. The original 70's Honda Civic got 50 mpg if you
> > drove it easy, same for the Austin Mini and they both went like scalded
> > cats when tuned nice. I got clocked at 132 mph in one Mini I owned and
> > it wasn't tached out.
> >
> > I was as the Canadian Road Race of Champions on a Mosport track in the
> > 70's and a Mini and Civic were nose and nose at the finish. They had
> > lapped 3rd place which was a Porsche Turbo Carrera with a Vett or Camaro
> > bringing up a dismal 4th.
> >
> > I got a nice 25% increase in fuel mileage up to 23 mpg in my CJ7 when I
> > killed the 'emissions' computer and it still has really low emissions
> > numbers.
> >
> > The new engines are pigs in comparison.
> >
> > Mike
>