Thread: Hybrid Discovery Unlikely - but it's coming

Originally Posted by MR LR

They already weigh in at 2.7 tons, they'll just slide back down whatever they try to climb

Fair point, might need to do some dieting first.

I am pretty sure/hopeful that the next model will do a Range Rover and shed 3-400Kg as they should have been from the start.

BUT I have to acknowledge that the quick and dirty product development job that LR did while owned by Ford has saved the company and there probably would not be a next model if not for the D3 D4.
Regards Philip A

Well they are big enough to stuff a few batteries in...I can just see them sneaking up on Big Red...

Originally Posted by isuzurover

Sorry but in most cases that is a flawed argument. Emissions of NOx, CO, VOCs, etc... have improved by many orders of magnitude since the 1950s and even the 1980s.

.....

.... Here is a quote from a PhD thesis which examined that very issue:


In short, a 1950's model car is doing more harm than good these days and it would be better to scrap it and buy a new car (or at least stop driving it).

Complete thesis if you want to read it: http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS03-18.pdf

I have not had time to critically analyse the thesis but on a quick review I have the following opinion.

Unfortunately the argument above lacks adequate data. The cited thesis only considers vehicles manufactured in 1985 not 1950 as discussed in the thread above.

In fact the study recommended the least costly life cycle option was actually keeping the 1985 model for 18 years and replacing it with a 2003 (or later) model.

The study also assumes a linear relationship of increasing emissions, but does not consider vehicles well maintained or vehicles poorly maintained. Neither does it consider the content of recyclables in pre 1985 vehicles and therefore the lifecycle energy cost of earlier era vehicles.

We know that vehicles manufactured between the 1970s to the 1980s had some of the worst fuel economy figures of any era, it may well be that in terms of CO2 and NOX a lighter 1950s or 1960 car could have a emmisions profile significantly different to the 1985 profile of the study. Without any data we cant make any assumptions.


I note you have a 1980s Defender, are you now going to replace it with a 2003 TD5 or later Defender based on this study?

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

I loathe Hybrids, they are the Volvo drivers of the 21st century (them an Subaru Forrester drivers), however that said they do have their place.

If your only use for a car is to drive in the inner metro area or to and from the CBD in peak period bumper to bumper traffic. They are probably a good choice. If anything near or above 50% or your annual driving is above 70KPH then you are a cost on the environment.

The Area Health Service based out of Dubbo bought a Prius for the Greater Western Child Health Network staff to go to hospitals as far away as Broken Hill and Bourke to do staff in-service education. Of the three cars available: Prius, Ford Focus and Toyota Corolla the Prius had by far the worst fuel economy. The simple reason is that the vehicle rarely drove at less than 70KPH. They only ever bought one.

Actually my experience has been that the 20th Century Volvo drivers have all migrated to Hondas.

Agree with the comments on hybrids though. A while back I was given a hybrid Camry to "trial" for a week (Toyota were trying to flog them to us for our "office fleet"). At the same time, I had recently purchased a similar model conventionally powered Camry for the wife.

Fuel economy - bugger all difference between the two. Cost - a bloody huge difference. There is no way that the cost difference between the two could be justified.

The only thing that I liked about the hybrid was the massive increase in acceleration if you booted it from a standing start. As AnD3rew pointed out, the torque of the electric drive in addition to the contribution of the petrol engine makes a huge difference. At cruising or highway speed however, there is no noticeable difference - if anything, the conventional engine is more responsive at these speeds (and is probably also using less fuel).

As for a hybrid having to "look" different to the standard model to sell - well there was no issue with this with the one they loaned me....................



It was a bloody embarrassment driving this around ....................

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

...


I note you have a 1980s Defender, are you now going to replace it with a 2003 TD5 or later Defender based on this study?

No, I am just not deluding myself.

Originally Posted by PhilipA

I am pretty sure/hopeful that the next model will do a Range Rover and shed 3-400Kg as they should have been from the start.

BUT I have to acknowledge that the quick and dirty product development job that LR did while owned by Ford has saved the company and there probably would not be a next model if not for the D3 D4.
Regards Philip A

I'd respectfully argue it was not the D3 or D4 that saved Land Rover but the RRS, yes I know a D3,D4 is a RRS but before the GFC Land Rover where selling RRS's in the USA as quickly as they where arriving in the showrooms it was the massive American market that actually really saved Land Rover from going under (fact) unlike Jag that nobody wanted to buy.

Originally Posted by BMKal

Actually my experience has been that the 20th Century Volvo drivers have all migrated to Hondas.

...:

Yes but wide body Accords...the Japanese Accord Euro's are way too throaty out of the twin exhausts for the former Iced Vovo drivers

Cheers