Thread: Is my Rangie more environmentally proper than a Prius?

Originally Posted by vnx205

I realise that there are benefits in not having the engine running while the car is sitting still, but I have often wondered how significant the disadvantages are.

It can be a decent saving on a petrol, because the engine is throttled, pumping losses at idle are quite high (several kw) and fuel consumption is quite high as a result. An idling diesel however uses very little fuel.

2.0tdi idling, around 1 litre per hour.
4.0L falcon idling, around 4 litres per hour.

Originally Posted by akelly

This still doesn't prove your point. You claimed all wars were about resources. The US (and others) did not go into Afghanistan (or Vietnam) because of resources - this is a fact. Unless you're going to post up something that supports what you actually typed, either admit you got it wrong (you can do that without posting) or at the very least read a book. I'm well sick of wiki-research nonsense.

Beg pardon for claiming anything? It's not me claiming reasons for going to war. Wiki research nonsense? USGS is not wiki. Calm down lad and read the link.

Originally Posted by vnx205

I realise that there are benefits in not having the engine running while the car is sitting still, but I have often wondered how significant the disadvantages are.

How long does it take for the power drained from the battery on each start to be replaced?

How much extra fuel is used because the alternator is working hard more often?

How likely is that that someone whose regular driving involves a lot of stop/start driving early in the trip before the engine warms up will have to replace the battery much sooner?

Has there been a significant increase in the number of drivers stranded at the traffic lights with a flat battery?

Perhaps all those things are so insignificant that they can be ignored, but I haven't seen them discussed elsewhere.

I have seen nothing on this either, but I suspect the problems are largely resolved by having an intelligent controller that does not switch the engine off until it is warm, nor if the battery voltage has not recovered.

The starting energy once warm, for a small modern engine, either petrol or diesel, will not be very great, as they will start, for a diesel, on the first compression, and for a petrol engine almost as fast. Particularly with the modern tendency to fit very large alternators because of high loads, recharging will be pretty quick. I would not be surprised if vehicles that have this feature use a larger battery, not so much for the starting, but for all the other junk that is draining the battery while the engine is stopped (computer, lights, entertainment system, seat heater, demisters, fans, window winders, door locks, security system, etc, etc!).

John

Originally Posted by JDNSW

... .... ....
I would not be surprised if vehicles that have this feature use a larger battery, not so much for the starting, but for all the other junk that is draining the battery while the engine is stopped (computer, lights, entertainment system, seat heater, demisters, fans, window winders, door locks, security system, etc, etc!).

John

I hadn't thought about all the extra demands on the battery in modern vehicles. I suppose the sort of vehicles that would have the stop/start technology would also have LED lights. I would expect that would save an enormous amount of power.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

<snip>
And on the subject of "do the research now while we have time". While this seems to be an admirable objective, unfortunately the economic reality is that doing research before it can be economically used is very difficult to justify, especially in a high interest environment. It is all very well to say the government should fund this, but perhaps the funds could be better used elsewhere, for example in improving public transport.

John

Hi John,

The beauty of a commercially available research platform (like the current hybrids and EVs) is that the government is not paying for the research - consumers are. That's why we should be encouraging new vehicle sales towards alternative energy sources but using economic enticements. Thats where the 'cash for clunkers' concept failed - although getting old ****heaps off the road is a great idea, people could still use that programme to buy giant V6 sedans. Perhaps a similar scheme but pushing towards low emission TD and hybrid vehicles would be a better idea. The problem with that, of course, is the local auto industry are addicted to giant ****boxes no one wants (hence why they are going broke).

I agree with your points re: the current performance of EVs and hybrids, that has been my position all along. My point is that we have to start somewhere - it could argued that by releasing the Prius, toyota has spurred on other manufacturers to produce much lower emission vehicles like the small diesels from VW etc... It could also be argued that this would have happended anyway - rising fuel prices will push technology improvements etc...

The guts of my argument is that without someone to lead the way we would still be driving giant V8 and straight six sedans with rubber floor mats in this country. Any attempt to push our energy use away from oil and onto more sustainable options has to be worth some effort.

I did make the point much earlier that I agree keeping your current car, maintaining it and trying to keep the miles down to a practical minimum is a great way to behave.

I'm surprised how unpopular my viewpoint is with some forum members. Most seem like rational people but seem to reject rational behaviour when it comes to technology and vehicles. Perhaps evidence that Australia is actually on its way to becoming the 'poor white trash of Asia'?

I'm enjoying the debate though. Thanks everyone!

Cheers,

Adam

A step towards the "greening" of the Prius, recycling the batteries.:

Recycling rare earth metals from batteries | Australian Battery Recycling Initiative

Toyota Announces Recycling Facilities For Hybrid NiMH Batteries | Inhabitat - Green Design Will Save the World

http://www.toyota.com/upcoming-vehic...echnology.html

Originally Posted by akelly

The beauty of a commercially available research platform (like the current hybrids and EVs) is that the government is not paying for the research - consumers are.
I believe that in the case of the Prius, the cost is being shared between Toyota and consumers. I think the first Prius model was sold for less than the cost of production and I think that is still the case. The idea was to get a few out there to generate interest and demand.
That's why we should be encouraging new vehicle sales towards alternative energy sources but using economic enticements. Thats where the 'cash for clunkers' concept failed - although getting old ****heaps off the road is a great idea, people could still use that programme to buy giant V6 sedans. Perhaps a similar scheme but pushing towards low emission TD and hybrid vehicles would be a better idea. The problem with that, of course, is the local auto industry are addicted to giant ****boxes no one wants (hence why they are going broke).
I thought that a more important reason that "cash for clunkers" won't work is that most people who drive clunkers do so because they can't afford anything newer. The gap between the cash subsidy and the new car price is far too great for most "clunker" owners.

I'm enjoying the debate though. Thanks everyone!

Cheers,

Adam

I think I agree with a great deal of your argument. I know I am in the minority in arguing, as I have done, that the Prius has largely served the purpose for which it was originally built. As I have said, it was not intended to be the final solution. It was designed to be a type of research platform. I believe it has been successful in that role.

Originally Posted by akelly

Hi John,

The beauty of a commercially available research platform (like the current hybrids and EVs) is that the government is not paying for the research - consumers are. That's why we should be encouraging new vehicle sales towards alternative energy sources but using economic enticements. Thats where the 'cash for clunkers' concept failed - although getting old ****heaps off the road is a great idea, people could still use that programme to buy giant V6 sedans. Perhaps a similar scheme but pushing towards low emission TD and hybrid vehicles would be a better idea. The problem with that, of course, is the local auto industry are addicted to giant ****boxes no one wants (hence why they are going broke).

I agree with your points re: the current performance of EVs and hybrids, that has been my position all along. My point is that we have to start somewhere - it could argued that by releasing the Prius, toyota has spurred on other manufacturers to produce much lower emission vehicles like the small diesels from VW etc... It could also be argued that this would have happended anyway - rising fuel prices will push technology improvements etc...

Fuel economy, particularly in the small diesels, is driven primarily by the price of fuel, especially in Europe. And it is quite clear that rising fuel prices, no matter how politically unpopular, are quite clearly the most effective driver of technology for fuel economy.

Originally Posted by akelly

The guts of my argument is that without someone to lead the way we would still be driving giant V8 and straight six sedans with rubber floor mats in this country. Any attempt to push our energy use away from oil and onto more sustainable options has to be worth some effort.

Perhaps I should point out that I have never owned a six or a V8 (nor have most of my family, for that matter) in over fifty years of ownership. And there is a lot to be said for rubber floor mats, especially when you have to paddle through the mud to open the gates on the way home! I have to seriously question the worth of efforts to push energy use away from oil beyond the increase in price as demand exceeds supply. Such efforts are likely to be futile and expensive. Since most of Australia's emissions come from burning coal and exporting coal, it seems to me that this is a much more useful target for efforts and funds.

Originally Posted by akelly

I did make the point much earlier that I agree keeping your current car, maintaining it and trying to keep the miles down to a practical minimum is a great way to behave.

I'm surprised how unpopular my viewpoint is with some forum members. Most seem like rational people but seem to reject rational behaviour when it comes to technology and vehicles. Perhaps evidence that Australia is actually on its way to becoming the 'poor white trash of Asia'?

I'm enjoying the debate though. Thanks everyone!

Cheers,

Adam

What you need to realise, is that a lot of forum members either live or travel extensively away from the major cities. And unless you live in a major city, and restrict your travel to close to these or a few major highways, most recent automotive technology has little to offer, while becoming unmaintainable and unrepairable in the absence of a nearby dealer. (An example is the information supplied by Diana pointing out that in this area the Prius gave worse fuel economy than any of the other cars in the fleet.) Almost all current automotive design is aimed squarely at the densely populated areas centred on London, Paris, Berlin, Detroit, Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing - they are not designed for areas with the sort of population density of 95% of Australia, where the nearest dealer might be a day's drive away, and rather than stop/start being the order of the day, more common are the signs pleading with drivers to take a break every two hours.

I think that this explains the attraction of older technology for many forum members.

John