This article does a REALLY good job of summing up my PERSONAL pov on hybrids and SUVs EXCEPT for one point where the author seems to imply that striving for "eye-popping" numbers on already fuel efficient vehicles is a useless exercize. I think we ought to make each class of vehicle as fuel efficient and emissions friendly as possible.

Okay.....ignite flame-throwers.....I'm ready


http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/06/auto...ion=2007060711

Peace,

Martin

 

Works for me! I've got a trailer hitch. I'll start towing SUVs. . . . <grins>

Actually there is merit in investigating any vehicle's performance characteristics. Just some, like my NHW11 Prius, have exceptionally high quality data available.

Bob Wilson

 

Great article. It's nice to see someone finally point this out in print. Many of us have been saying the same thing for quite a while on this site, and it has continued fall on deaf ears.

 

I agree - that's where I am too.

I'm in construction and am hauling materials and tools around to jobsites all the time. There's absolutely no way I would be doing that in a Prius or Civic hybrid - but I CAN do that in an Escape hybrid.

So the tradeoff to me is - of the available options that will work for me in my situation, which one will work and still be more efficient/better for the environment. The winner is - FEH. If this were not available I'd be buying something else that gets worse milage in the end - NOT a Prius or Civic.

The downside is I can't tow a trailer with this one - but we do have other vehicles in the company that can do that if needed.

 

I agree that there are people who need trucks.

And then there are people who "need" trucks.

And part of the problem comes in the fact that I'm really philosophically opposed to the later group, and there's many, many more people who fall into that latter category than the former.

I wish things would move in the following direction:

1) Trucks, loosely defined, would all be diesel... and to the maximum extent possible, they would be running biodiesel. They would employ Blutec type technology to reduce PM, NOx and SOx emissions. And to the maximum extent possible, they would be hybrid. With trucks, my personal order of importance in planning for the future in terms of priorities is diesel, technology to cut down impacts of diesel, then if possible hybrid as well.
2) Cars would all be hybrids... and because the complaint about biodiesel and biofuels in general is that there's not enough farmland, etc.,. to manufacture the demand for fuel if we all converted to biofuel, many more passenger cars would be E85 compatible hybrids than diesel hybrids. I think diesel hybrids are an attractive option for cars as well, recognizing engine cycle technical hurdles that need to be overcome. But maybe for sustainability passenger cars would cede biodiesel to the big trucks. With cars, my personal order of importance in planning for the future in terms of priorities is hybrids, biofuels with technology to cut down impacts of biofuels, then, when possible-- they'd be pure electric.
3) Everyone would be getting solar panels on the roofs of their houses NOW to prepare for a day when people will be driving electric cars as much as possible. Electricity offers the promise of the most efficient energy use, but range, weight and cost get in the way today. But we don't have time to wait until tomorrow.

Eventually, most hybrids will be replaced with pure electric vehicles, but trucks and some cars capable of "road trips" would still be around. But they'd be considered "uncool."

Because most importantly, in my idea of a sustainable future, there will be a rise of bike culture-- where cars are seen as nerdy old people transportation, and the young hipsters would all be rolling pedal power. For that to happen realistically, many suburbs will need to be abandoned and turned back to farm land. It's a colossal waste, but that house out in the exurbs isn't going to be all that attractive when there's no gas left to put in a car to get there and back.

Now, one of two things is true: we can all move towards a picture of the world that looks like this voluntarily, or we can wind up in a world that faces economic collapse because all the oil goes bye bye and people are left riding bikes because they've got no other choice.

So from that perspective, I don't like hearing about people who "realistically aren't going to replace their LARGE SUVs" because of snow, or whatever, because one day they're not going to have a choice. They're going to have a large suv sitting in their garage and no gas to put in it. So let's talk about being "real," and let's talk about what really needs to be done. Articles like this would've been fine 20 years ago. But I believe we've sat on our butts so long we need to start talking about more radical re-organizations and solutions.

Of course, we can all question how much time we have left, but we will run out of oil one day. We need to start reshaping the world now, before we run out of the oil it's going to take to rebuild our energy infrastructure.

 

This seems like a flimsy argument.

E85 is 85% farmland fuel, so it would not reduce the farmland shortage.

The real argument is that it takes more energy to produce it than you get out of it, so it is a negative investment of energy. Also, is there enough refining capacity for the increased farm production feeding the biofuels market?

As an aside, I am seeing much more corn grown around the Houston area (yes that is Houston, TX we are still a farming community!) than I have in recent years. It seems the amount of cotton fields has reduced drasticly and the amount of fields used for corn production has taken a severe turn for the better. There have been years past that more than 50% of the farm land around here was left fallow, but now it seems like that number is around 15% for fallow land.

Now if we could figure out a way to help our rice farmers. They are taking a beating, and most of the rice land can not support many other crops. We really need to find a way to help them out so I don't lose my duck / goose hunting lands.

 

Not a flimsy argument, I didn't make it clear: A flexfuel vehicle that CAN run E85 can also run 100% petroluem gas as well. So it can use any mixture between 0-85% ethanol. Thus, it accounts for arguments about biofuels being impossible because of land concerns, because it can use conventional gasoline until we run out of gasoline.

But as far as the energy in/energy out argument, or as we refer to it as: EROEI (energy returned on energy invested), you are absolutely wrong.

There's one guy, David Pimentel (a entomologist from Cornell) that has almost single-handedley (with a little help from Tad Patzek at Berkeley (a former Shell employee)) perpetuated the myth that ethanol results in an energy loss. It's a bad argument, it's been refuted dozens of times, and I don't want to waste my time stating all the 2 billion reasons why it's incorrect for the 10th time on this website.

If you want to help the rice farmers, you could go into business making ethanol from rice. Since MTBE was banned by most states, there's been a huge rush to create ethanol capacity, and despite the fact that the oil industry hates, and I mean HATES using ethanol, they've been using as much ethanol as they can get their hands on (even when they've no longer got the oxygenate requirement). Now, there's an upper limit to how much ethanol they can use in the summer time because of RVP requirements, but ethanol is a pretty safe bet right now.

 

No flames or anything else. The article does make some good points. However, there is one conclusion stated as fact that has multiple possible
causes and can create different conclusions.

"Even as consumers have been ditching mid-sized SUVs for smaller SUVs and cars amid rising gas prices, sales of large SUVs have stayed relatively flat. That indicates that these buyers can't easily switch.

I didn't have to go very far to find a perfect test case: my sister. She lives in Cape Cod, Mass., where it snows heavily in the winter. She has three boys who all play hockey, a dog and a husband; and she usually has a couple of her kids' friends - and their hockey equipment - tagging along wherever they go."

So, my question is couldn't 2 Prius getting 50 mpg (25 mpg total for the destination) carry all of this and still save gas over 1 Yukon getting 15 mpg? And wouldn't the cost of 2 Prius be about equal to a single Yukon?

Actually, 2 adults and 3 kids hockey equipment will easily fit in a Prius. Leave the dog at home and tell the friends parents to take them to the rink instead letting the writer's sister use her gas do it. And God forbid the kids should have to sit in the back with their hockey sticks on their laps for 10 minutes.

Using the "transportation problem exercise" may show picking up one friend in a Yukon saves fuel but it might show the opposite too. It all depends on distances between points.

In short, looking closer at the example of the sister the writer fell way short of being convincing.

 

You obviously don't know anyone that plays hockey and know what kind of gear they carry around in those bags.

I can see one adult, two kids, and maybe two kids' hockey gear fitting - but that would be bursting at the seams.

And if they played on a traveling team, you could have to be scrunched in with your gear for a few hours in this car like that. Not a comfortable ride.

No way on two kids with hockey gear in a Prius - much less three.

 

I don't think anyone who is truly interested in conserving/eliminating dino fuel for power would have any beef with this article. Frankly I think it's great that GM has gone its own way and played to it's strengths ( as Honda and Toyota have done ) by making their first hybrids for their big vehicles. It makes all the sense in the world and with 30 sec of simple math anyone can see that the 2-Modes will save the same amount of fuel as Toyota offering a hybrid Camry ( subject to everthing going as planned ). Play to your strength.

With this GM has been able to do what Toyota did with the Prius. Make itself stand alone in one segment. Do you think Toyota is really happy about having to bring out a new version of the Sequoia with just the oh-so-last-century power system.

Now will the 2-Modes be as capable as the HSD in midsized vehicles? Will the Aura 2-Mode ( A2M ? ) be as efficient as the TCH? That remains to be seen. Can the 2-Modes be transported to smaller vehicles and be as cost effective as the IMA? ehhhh?

Here's a biggie. Will the traditional GM shopper/buyer be willing to pay a $2000-$4000 premium for a 2-Mode Yukon in order to save 15 Gal/1000 mi ( $50 )? OK so that's $600 /yr or about $3000 over 5 years @ 12000 mi/yr. "What do you mean sticker price? No rebates?" It would be a shme if all GM's great efforts got ignored. 'I am not paying a premium much less full sticker for a GM SUV." That's a toughie. Its akin to Toyota offering incentives on the new Tundra from day 1.

The basic question such a shopper has to ask themselves is do I want to give $3000 of my money to GM ( for its research and efforts ) or to I want to give that $3000 to some insanely wealthy oil company and its behind-the-scenes 'friendly partners'.

PS biggie question: Are Toyota and Honda and GM 'coordinating' their efforts to promote the use of hybrids across the whole spectrum of vehicles by staying out of each other's way? ( Ford would have been included were it not suddenly attacked by a school of pirhanas )