Ford Focus Hated. Who did not see this coming?

[Monster5601]

California sees itself as a trend setter... politicians say as California goes so goes the nation...

California has had unleaded fuel and catalytic converters since the early 70's...

Don't think all of that is true but I can tell you this, we design emissions systems against CARB rules since CARB seems to control the EPA.

Let's all thank California for helping the country to regulate us in to financial extinction.

How much does it cost per car for regulation, anyone care to guess?

 

[SensibleNick]

The Prius is a proven vehicle with over 2,000,000 worldwide including 1,000,000 in the U.S. since 1997.

2008 Prius. Wife drives 150 miles round trip to work three times per week. 45 to 50 MPG. per tank. 450 mile per tank more than once. Worst gas mileage was 38 MPG. 170,000 miles on it. Drives better than a Civic. I drive fast on the freeway. Been across the U.S. twice. Five adults with their baggage more than once.
When this Prius hits 200,000 miles we will buy another and keep the 2008.

This is the sad thing... when it starts it's life it has a carbon footprint that is similar to that of a non-hybrid that has already done 100,000 ... and while returning an MPG of 50, it is performing worse than many modern cars, causing the gap between the two carbon footprints to widen.....

Having driven a couple of civics and a Prius, I'd be interested to hear your definition of a "nice handling car". I've driven a Landrover than handled better than a Prius.

 

[arrow]

Sensible Nick: currently the government is offering a 10G incentive to buy a Chevy Volt. I find this disgusting as I do not wish my tax dollars to support any individuals' life style.

If anyone thinks batteries are not a concern, what do you do with the car that now needs $15,000 worth of batteries and to compound the problem, you want to sell it or trade it in?

All of the math about these cars has already been done by manufacturing engineers. As a result of the nonsensicle math as it relates to consumer driving habits, I'm thinking that the car companies couldn't care less about this aspect. This seems to me more of a compliance of some future C.A.F.E. figures that manufacturers can factor in to raise their compliance figures so they can keep making the same cars for awhile longer. Shucks, now they do not even provide the spare tires anymore in small cars as that robs .2 of a mile per gallon. Just more government directing our lives to ruination.

Also, with all these emission fighting elements we have been putting in cars for the last 30 years, has anyone not seen a smog cloud over our larger cities of late? Don't forget, we had our souls sold to the devil starting from the 50's when the we gave up the idea of mass transit so everyone could "See the USA in your Chevrolet"

 

[strum456]

Are electric cars essentially coal fired? In most areas, yes. However, electrical power is far more efficient than any other technology we have (electric motors have efficiency ratings starting at 90%). There is no question about it, we have a lot to gain by developing electric cars.

Would I buy one? No time in the near future. The batterys still need a lot of development, and it would not make economical sense. Who in the right mind would spend in excess of $10,000 more at the dealer, to save a little at the pump? Only the people that want to make a statment about how "green" they are are buying these cars today. Well, I'd rather keep the "green" in my wallet.

 

[greasemonkeyok]

Yes sir Strum465. But you are missing the point - greenies want it both ways. Burn the coal in YOUR state to generate the electricity (i.e., pollute your air), transport it down the high tension power lines to the pristine state so the greenies can smugly drive their feel-good vehicles.:thumbsup:

Simply put, electricity is NOT a source of energy, it is just a pipe.

 

[houstonscott]

Are electric cars essentially coal fired? In most areas, yes. However, electrical power is far more efficient than any other technology we have (electric motors have efficiency ratings starting at 90%). There is no question about it, we have a lot to gain by developing electric cars.

Would I buy one? No time in the near future. The batterys still need a lot of development, and it would not make economical sense. Who in the right mind would spend in excess of $10,000 more at the dealer, to save a little at the pump? Only the people that want to make a statment about how "green" they are are buying these cars today. Well, I'd rather keep the "green" in my wallet.

I think your wrong about electric cars. They will never be as efficient as using the source of power right on board. An electric car can never be efficient as an internal combustion engine. When you consider the power lost in every stage of electric production from the plant to the substations from 10000volts to 440v to 220v to the battery to the motor the lost power is gigantic. The same gallon of energy burning in the cars engine moves the car further. It's simple physics and no electric car will ever be as efficient as a burning the energy directly. Than add all the other inefficients into the problem, like hauling hundreds of pounds of batteries around and scale tips even more toward the ICE, it's a fantastic machine, and it's not going away. Since the pollution standards for the car are so high compared to the power plant the pollution factor goes to the car too. Think of it this way electrics only advantage is they don't pollute locally, and that maybe important in places, but they use more energy and that pollution happens somewhere else where the electric power is being generated. Electric cars are the most inefficient and use more energy than ICE cars, always will.

HS

 

[strum456]

I think your wrong about electric cars. They will never be as efficient as using the source of power right on board. An electric car can never be efficient as an internal combustion engine. When you consider the power lost in every stage of electric production from the plant to the substations from 10000volts to 440v to 220v to the battery to the motor the lost power is gigantic.
HS

Physics is never simple! Without getting into the gruesome details, electrical power is transmitted over long distance at very high voltages to increase efficiency. Substations use transformers to decrease the voltages to safer levels for more local distribution. Then, finally there is a transformer by your house that takes the power from 7,200v down to two legs of 120. The transformers used for power distribution are about 98% efficient.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want an electric car either. I am just explaining why our country should not completely rule out electric cars as an option in the future. Obvously, the big ??? is the how to make good enough batteries.

 

[rsewill]

I think your wrong about electric cars. They will never be as efficient as using the source of power right on board. An electric car can never be efficient as an internal combustion engine. When you consider the power lost in every stage of electric production from the plant to the substations from 10000volts to 440v to 220v to the battery to the motor the lost power is gigantic. The same gallon of energy burning in the cars engine moves the car further. It's simple physics and no electric car will ever be as efficient as a burning the energy directly. Than add all the other inefficients into the problem, like hauling hundreds of pounds of batteries around and scale tips even more toward the ICE, it's a fantastic machine, and it's not going away. Since the pollution standards for the car are so high compared to the power plant the pollution factor goes to the car too. Think of it this way electrics only advantage is they don't pollute locally, and that maybe important in places, but they use more energy and that pollution happens somewhere else where the electric power is being generated. Electric cars are the most inefficient and use more energy than ICE cars, always will.

HS

Gas cars are 25% efficient and Diesels 45%. Power stations are in the 95+% efficiency range. Power loss at substations is negligible. There is loss in transmission. Every generating station in the USA puts out less emissions than any vehicle per fuel used/kW-hrs just because it is easier to extract pollution at the stack than at the tailpipe. Don't forget it pollutes to make the gas you burn as well as the blood and treasure we expended over the last 10 years to keep crude flowing to Big Oil.

Our next car, when we replace one of our Diesels, will be all electric.

BTW, two years ago I went 1250 miles each way to get my last Diesel VW. It was used and the model I wanted (Passat wagon) was hard to come by. I expect to do nothing less for an electric.

 

[aczlan]

An interesting paper from the "18th International Symposium Transport and Air Pollution, Session 3: Electro and Hybrid Vehicles"
http://www.ifeu.org/verkehrundumwel... Electric vehicles (TAP conference paper).pdf
Per the paper, depending on where your power comes from, a plug in hybrid can have as much or more "Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions" as an efficient diesel car. So, the elephant in the room is where the power that charges your plugin hybrid comes from.

Aaron Z

 

[SensibleNick]

When you consider the power lost in every stage of electric production from the plant to the substations from 10000volts to 440v to 220v to the battery to the motor the lost power is gigantic.

-Snip-

Electric cars are the most inefficient and use more energy than ICE cars, always will.

HS

Woah. I've seen people abuse and mangle physics in my time, but this is a new record.

First statement: Voltage is NOT Equal to Power
When you look at a 3v power supply plugged into a wall socket, do you see the 3v as "all that's left" from the original 10Kv line?

Second statement: Flat-out wrong.

I could get into why, but I feel that it'd be water of a duck's back.
EDIT: and looking though this, it seems as though others have had a good crack at telling you why.